tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-89247568098710543362015-03-03T14:21:25.747-08:00Rust Belt PhilosophyOffering fact-based philosophy and constructive pedantry since 2007Eli Horowitzhttps://plus.google.com/107677687997893275486noreply@blogger.comBlogger4302125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8924756809871054336.post-10766039791984879652015-03-03T11:20:00.001-08:002015-03-03T11:20:20.895-08:00Political links!<b>No</b><br /><a href="http://www.salon.com/2015/02/11/the_new_racists_on_campus_meet_the_youth_wing_of_the_white_nationalism_movement_partner/" target="_blank">Go away</a>.<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">"In recent years, groups like Youth for Western Civilization, formed by Kevin DeAnna, and the Traditionalist Youth Network, which emerged from a chapter of YWC founded on Towson University's campus by Matthew Heimbach, have dominated the campus extremism landscape. At one point, YWC boasted 13 chapters, and TYN was making regular headlines for its racist activism at Towson and Indiana University."</blockquote>Seriously, get the fuck out. Go to Mars or somewhere. The US should have no place for this sort of shit.<br /><br /><br /><br /><b>Yes</b><br />I don't live in Ithaca, but I've seen the t-shirts and they lead me to believe that it's a gorges place (...full of people who have exceptionally low punning standards). And with <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2015/02/27/the-future-of-urbanism-according-to-the-27-year-old-mayor-of-ithaca/" target="_blank">Svante Myrick's leadership</a>, it can only get better.<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">"Our generation is flooding back into cities. They realize they'd rather walk to work. How many people do you know who are eager to live in a suburb?...[I]f you study human behavior before that, for like ever, this was the way people lived quite very happily. And healthily...From the 1950s till now, we've been demolishing people spaces in place of parking spaces. So in between every building you had a parking lot, then a bigger parking lot, then a bigger parking lot.<br /><br />Now if you want to go to the grocery store you have to drive, it's too far to walk. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you densify, you can walk, you can take mass transit. You can get around cleaner and safer. You have a more vibrant city."</blockquote><div>I like it. More of that, please.</div><br /><br /><b>Gee, you don't say</b><br />According to <a href="http://thefederalist.com/2015/02/27/on-net-neutrality-even-john-oliver-would-call-john-oliver-an-idiot/" target="_blank">Henry Scanlon</a>, net neutrality would prevent the internet from going down a certain capitalist-style development path that we should all be familiar with by now. Which, yes, that is what net neutrality would do. Which is why we're for it.<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">"Scaring you into thinking you’re going to be consigned to some kind of broadband back alley is another 'shiny object' intended to distract. Here's how Oliver describes it: 'Ending net neutrality would allow big companies to buy their way into the fast lane, leaving everyone else in the slow lane.'<br /><br />Here's how stupid that statement is: 'Ending tech neutrality would allow Apple to provide faster iPads for more money, leaving everyone else with slower ones.' Or, 'Ending car neutrality would allow Ford to have big dealerships all over the country, while Tesla has to struggle to find a market.'"</blockquote><br />Or: "ending education neutrality would allow rich people to pay more for better education, leaving everyone else illiterate and innumerate." Or: "ending healthcare neutrality would open the door to rich people paying more for better health care, leaving everyone else to suffer and die at young ages from preventable diseases." Or: "ending water neutrality would enable rich people to buy clean water, while poorer people could choose to save money by drinking raw sewage." Yes, Henry, net neutrality would prevent the internet from becoming just like every other capitalist commodity, <i>and that's precisely the reason that people support it.</i>&nbsp;We don't <i>want</i>&nbsp;the internet to be like the food market (in which the wealthy get fine dining and the poor get reconstituted horse meat) or the transportation market (in which the wealthy get to travel in relative comfort while the poor are stuck with run-down used cars or shitty public transit systems) or the housing market (don't get me started). Now, it may be the case that net neutrality isn't the best <i>tactic</i>&nbsp;to achieve that goal, but you aren't gonna convince many people by telling them that net neutrality will circumvent the free market. That is, after all, the point.<br /><br />(Incidentally, this article also features the line "I love the fact that I have the opportunity to pay extra," which suggests that Henry Scanlon is not actually a real person but a robot whose AI has been clumsily programmed by someone with an advanced degree in marketing.)<br /><br /><br /><b>"Evee-dense"? Whassat?</b><br /><a href="http://thefederalist.com/2015/02/24/14-things-everyone-should-understand-about-guns/" target="_blank">Hmm</a>...<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">"I personally dislike the term 'accidental' shooting, because it suggests a lack of accountability and responsibility. A more appropriate term is 'negligent' shooting, since human action is required to load a magazine, secure the loaded magazine, chamber a round, and pull the trigger...<br /><br />But what about intentional shootings where innocent people are targeted? Those don’t just require human agency, they require criminal intent. That's why we try and punish criminals, rather than their weapons. It's why gun criminals are sent to prison, while the criminals' guns are often sent to the auction block. Criminal will is a far more dangerous and eternal thing than a simple firearm."</blockquote><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2014/09/04/how-often-do-children-in-the-u-s-unintentionally-shoot-and-kill-people-we-dont-know/" target="_blank">Hmmm</a>...<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">"After a 9-year-old girl in Arizona accidentally shot and killed her shooting range instructor with an Uzi [in late August 2014], it raised what would appear to be a fairly obvious question: How often do children in the United States — where unintentional or accidental shootings occur with some frequency — fatally shoot people by accident?<br /><br />The answer: We don't actually know for sure."</blockquote><a href="http://abcnews.go.com/Health/cdc-ban-gun-research-caused-lasting-damage/story?id=18909347" target="_blank">Hmmmm</a>...<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">"President Obama may have ended the 17-year ban on gun violence research at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, but even if Congress restores research funds, experts say the damage runs deeper than funding cuts.<br /><br />Since the 1996 ban, many of the leading researchers of the 1980s and 1990s have moved on to other specialties, and some said they've even discouraged students from specializing in gun violence research because the work doesn't pay. The ban also helped make gun-related questions controversial even for studies not funded by the government, and it will take years to restore available data to what it once was."</blockquote>"Criminal will," the man says, "is a far more dangerous...thing than a simple firearm." And how does he <i>know</i>&nbsp;that? Because fuck you for even asking, that's why - what are you, some kind of freedom-hating communist who wants to take all of our guns away? Don't you know that's how the Nazis got started? <i>THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS TOO MANY GUNS!</i><br /><br /><br /><b>Numbers are tricky</b><br /><a href="http://dailysignal.com/2015/02/27/rand-paul-defend-whole-bill-rights/" target="_blank">There's that concept of "all" again</a>.<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">"The way to win more voters to the Republican banner is to guard 'the whole Bill of Rights,' not just the Second Amendment, Sen. Rand Paul told an enthusiastic crowd of conservatives this afternoon...<br /><br />The Kentucky Republican, who devoted much of his prepared remarks to urging his audience to defend their liberty from government intrusions such as data collection, specifically said conservatives also must guard rights guaranteed by the First, Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendments."</blockquote>Now, some of you may not be constitutional scholars, so let me clarify a few things. First and foremost, our constitution is larger than just the bill of rights. In fact, the original body of the constitution itself doesn't even include the bill of rights; that bill took the form of a series of ten amendments to the original document. Moreover, there have been another seventeen amendments since then, which are presumably just as politically valid as the original ten. And, as you may have already figured out, the <i>ten</i>&nbsp;amendments in the bill of rights include more than the first, second, fourth, fifth, and sixth amendments. Of particular relevance to this case are <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights#Eighth_Amendment" target="_blank">the eighth amendment</a> (which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment, which these days frequently includes the death penalty, which is something that conservatives love) <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights#Ninth_Amendment" target="_blank">the ninth amendment</a> (which has been used as the basis for a right to privacy, which in turn serves as the justification for legalized abortion, which is something that conservatives hate). You'd think that, if Paul had been serious about defending "the whole bill of rights" instead of simply using the phrase "bill of rights" as a rhetorical cudgel, he would've mentioned those amendments as well. But, as we know on this blog, the concept of "all" <i>can</i> be surprisingly complicated at times.<br /><br /><br /><b>Those last two articles, combined into one</b><br /><a href="http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2015/02/08/3620615/nra-corporal-punishment-texas/" target="_blank">Uhhhhhhhhhhhhh</a>...<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">"A board member for the National Rifle Association wants to defeat a proposed bill that would ban corporal punishment in Texas schools, arguing that paddling a child now may prevent him from 'having to put a bullet in him later.'"</blockquote>And that, dear readers, is the most 'murican thing you'll see all day. You're welcome.Eli Horowitzhttps://plus.google.com/107677687997893275486noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8924756809871054336.post-40843378228519972682015-03-03T10:38:00.000-08:002015-03-03T10:38:12.562-08:00A sophisticated case of trolling, perhaps?It's that time of year again, friends: CPAC, the conservative something something bunch of crazy people who gather in a room together to say all the crazy things they've been preventing themselves from saying elsewhere, as if there aren't cameras all over that room, too. But more specifically, it's also time for the American Atheists organization to send one of their representatives to CPAC in order to, uh, well, I'm not quite sure. <a href="http://rustbeltphilosophy.blogspot.com/2014/03/my-enemys-enemy-can-still-fuck-me-up.html" target="_blank">Last year it was David Silverman, whose attendance at CPAC didn't even seem to make sense to Silver himself</a>. This year it's (native Pittsburgher!) Jamila Bey, whose speech you can see <a href="http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4529326/jamila-bey" target="_blank">here</a> and whose attendance is not much more rationally explicable than Silverman's was.<br /><br />Her speech, for one, was practically incoherent. The biggest takeaway was that conservatives (by which she appears to mean Republicans) can't strategically afford to ignore nonreligious voters, which is true enough but which has never stopped them before. In one of the rare moments in which she mentions ideology, she says she supports equality, but that's never been a particularly popular idea among US conservatives. She also makes a clumsy attempt to appropriate Lincoln as a conservative, which marks her either as a (weirdly) sophisticated liar or an atrociously poor student of history. (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_States_Democratic_Party#Breakdown_of_the_Second_Party_System.2C_1854.E2.80.931859" target="_blank">At the time, Lincoln's Republicans were actually progressive, not conservative</a>.) And then there's some stuff about "family," which is in fact a conservative buzzword but which, as a buzzword, doesn't have much substance. So I'm not quite sure what to make of all of that.<br /><br />Nor are Bey's writings helpful. <a href="http://freethoughtblogs.com/jamila/" target="_blank">She joined Freethought Blogs last month and has yet to say anything of substance there</a>. Before that, she wrote for the Washington Post and doesn't appear to have harbored any sympathy for anything even remotely resembling a conservative point of view - see e.g. <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/she-the-people/post/rush-limbaughs-attack-on-sandra-fluke-was-hate-speech/2012/03/02/gIQAZVxrmR_blog.html" target="_blank">1</a>, <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/she-the-people/wp/2012/10/04/news-anchor-addresses-e-mail-bully-on-air/" target="_blank">2</a>, <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/she-the-people/wp/2013/07/17/every-black-boy-is-coming-right-for-you/" target="_blank">3</a>, <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/she-the-people/wp/2013/06/26/wendy-davis-beats-the-clock-with-an-assist-from-the-gallery/" target="_blank">4</a>. There's still the possibility that she's a fiscal conservative (who doesn't understand that fiscal conservativism is often a means for socially conservative ends); and there's also the possibility that she's a war hawk (who doesn't understand how fucking terrible that is); but in either of those cases I'd have expected her to, y'know, <i>say</i>&nbsp;any of that stuff at any point in the past.<br /><br />And then, of course, there's the conspiracy-theory possibility - i.e., that she (and Silverman, and American Atheists in general) are just posing as "conservative" in order to infiltrate CPAC and minimize its theocratic nature. In <i>that</i>&nbsp;case, I'm back to where I was before: is it <i>really</i>&nbsp;worth doing that at the cost of making the atheist movement even more full of jingoistic, warmongering, entitled white guys? Because that is the CPAC demographic, and if those people really do start to warm to atheism then I can guarantee you that we (religious skeptics) won't solve our sexism or racism problems any time soon.<br /><br />No matter what the reality of this confusing situation may be, it's worth keeping an eye on. Maybe the American Atheists people will actually explain themselves some day (ha ha ha). Maybe they really will succeed at secularizing CPAC. Maybe they'll even do so without overly burdening an already-factious nonreligious coalition. Maybe even they have no real idea of why they're doing this. Who knows! But this conservative-atheist stuff is the sort of thing that has a real potential to shape history (even if only in a smallish, local way), so someone had better keep tabs on it.Eli Horowitzhttps://plus.google.com/107677687997893275486noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8924756809871054336.post-85175614224575633842015-03-02T16:58:00.001-08:002015-03-02T16:58:48.263-08:00Monthly Monday mixtape: instrumentals, or a study mix, or whatever<iframe height="250" src="http://8tracks.com/mixes/5875508/player_v3_universal" style="border: 0px none;" width="300"></iframe><br /><div class="_8t_embed_p" style="font-size: 11px; line-height: 12px;"><a href="http://8tracks.com/larryniven/a-study-mix-kinda-i-guess?utm_medium=trax_embed">A study mix, kinda, I guess</a> from <a href="http://8tracks.com/larryniven?utm_medium=trax_embed">larryniven</a> on <a href="http://8tracks.com/?utm_medium=trax_embed">8tracks Radio</a>.</div><br /><br />1. R.E.M. - New Orleans Instrumental No. 1<br />2. Rufus Wainwright (or so I'm told; it's off the Myth Of Fingerprints soundtrack) - Super 8<br />3. Yo-Yo Ma, Stuart Duncan, Edgar Meyer, and Chris Thile - Franz and the Eagle<br />4. Chris Thile - Raining at Sunset<br />5. Acoustic Cafe - The Ancient Sun<br />6. Tsuneo Imahori - Sandy Planet<br />7. Yann Tiersen - Comptine d'Ete no. 2<br />8. Yoshida Kiyoshi - Daylife<br />9. John Vanderslice - The Golden Gate<br />10. Aphex Twin - Rhubarb<br />11. Tettix - The Razor Cliffs<br />12. Nujabes&nbsp;+ Fat Jon - Mystline[Memories]<br />13. Prefuse 73 - Perverted UndertoneEli Horowitzhttps://plus.google.com/107677687997893275486noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8924756809871054336.post-3159352110939723722015-03-02T08:14:00.001-08:002015-03-02T08:14:40.793-08:00Links!<b>Your mission: maximize the number of living human bodies</b><br />Did you know that "[t]here aren't enough of us human beings"? And that, moreover, this alleged underpopulation "is killing us"? <a href="http://blog.acton.org/archives/76159-worldwide-flight-from-family-is-killing-us.html" target="_blank">That's what Elise Hilton thinks</a>, at least, which is kinda funny, because by all estimations there are more "of us human beings" than there have ever been. But apparently we won't be satisfied until the entire planet is just one big ball of human biomass, I guess.<br /><br /><br /><b>Meanwhile...</b><br /><a href="http://thinkprogress.org/world/2015/02/27/3628175/blogger-macheted-bangladesh/" target="_blank">A religious skeptic gets hacked to death in Bangladesh</a>, <a href="http://www.patheos.com/blogs/camelswithhammers/2015/02/isiss-iconoclasm-the-bible-and-the-problem-with-taking-literalism-literally/" target="_blank">ISIS joins the club of religious destroyers of art</a>, and <a href="http://www.libertarianism.org/columns/freethought-freedom-aquinas-luther-calvin-persecution" target="_blank">even libertarians know enough to identify religion as a motivation for violence</a>. No word yet from <a href="http://rustbeltphilosophy.blogspot.com/2015/02/bigotry-bigotry-everywhere.html" target="_blank">Vlad Chituc</a> on why it's not cool to talk about this stuff.<br /><br /><br /><b>Another "moment of total victory" update</b><br />Rod Dreher is paying enough attention to LGBT issues to <a href="http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/lgbttqqfagpbdsm-omg-wesleyan/" target="_blank">make fun of acronyms</a> and to <a href="http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/apple-culture-war-criminal-same-sex-marriage/" target="_blank">mourn the fact that a high-powered lobbyist was fired by Apple</a>, but he doesn't seem to have noticed <a href="http://www.thestranger.com/blogs/slog/2015/02/25/21783673/shitty-people-in-shitty-places-working-to-make-shitty-places-shittier" target="_blank">the slew of anti-LGBT stuff going on in various governments around the US</a>. Funny, isn't it, how his attention tends to wander only to areas that are comfortable for him?<br /><br /><br /><b>Welp</b><br />Nuke Nevada. <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/health/2015/02/24/3626567/nevada-assemblywoman-cancer-fungus/" target="_blank">That place is clearly not worth keeping around</a>.<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">"Nevada Assemblywoman Michele Fiore (R) wants to reform the rules of end-of-life medical care so that more cancer patients can simply flush out their disease using baking soda."</blockquote>Sorry about Las Vegas, I guess, but nobody really likes that place anyway. Its best moments were in the Ocean's movies, and that's saying something.<br /><br /><br /><b>And the definition of "fun" is...?</b><br /><a href="http://techcrunch.com/2015/02/24/stoplift-watches-you-at-the-self-checkout/" target="_blank">Not this, I don't think</a>.<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">"StopLift is one of those ideas that makes perfect sense and also makes you wonder if you're being watched. A combination camera/image detection system, it watches self- and staffed checkout systems for signs of theft...In all, it's aimed at making your trip to the store more fun and less of a hassle."</blockquote>I mean, I've been through a lot of checkout lines in my time, both "self- and staffed," and I can't recall ever having any noticeable amount of fun thereat. It sure is creepy, though, that someone is trying to redefine "fun" to mean "in compliance with a capitalist ideal."<br /><br /><br /><b>Antonyms</b><br />Someone ought to tell Ben Carson that <a href="http://dailysignal.com/2015/02/26/ben-carson-tells-cpac-crowd-wants-get-rid-dependency-not-welfare-programs/" target="_blank">these two concepts</a> are not in opposition to one another.<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">"Spreading a message about cultivating opportunity rather than dependency, the retired Maryland surgeon said, will attract struggling Americans, including African-Americans, to the Republican Party."</blockquote>Opportunity and dependency are completely mutually compatible. In fact, the operating ethos in the US is practically designed to maximize both opportunity and dependency (although not necessarily dependency on welfare in particular; we don't really care who the poor turn to in order to scrape by, just so long as they're poor). I mean, not that Carson matters - that guy's got no political future. Still, though, it'd be nice if he had even the most marginal understanding of what he was talking about.Eli Horowitzhttps://plus.google.com/107677687997893275486noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8924756809871054336.post-41704819327723451932015-02-27T10:36:00.000-08:002015-02-27T10:36:09.229-08:00Playing with fireBurn victimization incoming in <a href="http://www.patheos.com/blogs/camelswithhammers/2015/02/atheism-is-not-a-religion-but-there-should-be-atheistic-religions/" target="_blank">three, two, one</a>...<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">"If something empirically <i>works </i>and can be disassociated from supernaturalistic, faith-based, regressive, or authoritarian baggage to be made to work even better in a secularized and more rationalistic way by all means atheists should be willing to appropriate it into new religions."</blockquote>Dan Fincke should've stopped while he was ahead: if something works well overall (i.e., taking into account both its rational and its affective components, perhaps among others), atheists should be willing to appropriate it, <i>period.</i>&nbsp;The moment he gets into the other thing, the "new religions" thing, he gets himself in way over his head.<br /><br />Religions, after all, are not exactly known for lacking "supernaturalistic, faith-based, regressive, or authoritarian baggage." Even a religion founded by religious skeptics (which, really, think about that for a second) would have to retain some of the baggage that people like Fincke ostensibly want to get rid of. To wit, this other paragraph from that post:<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">"The other issue is that one of the geniuses of religion is its striking ability to interweave ideas with an incredible array of mediums (from ritual to symbol to architecture to meditative practices to liturgies to songs to chants to moral codes to community structure to identity formation, etc.) which all interact in intricate ways to reinforce each other. It could be that humanism would benefit immensely if we thought creatively about what innovations in forms could do to make our ideas stronger and make our ability to inculcate our values and identities in people stronger."</blockquote>There's something very bizarre about decrying authoritarian behavior on the one hand and then, on the other hand, talking about the need "to inculcate our values and identities in people" using things like "ritual" and "liturgies." It's not even clear that Fincke is focusing on the right things: there's a clear case to be made for having the right values, but it's not at all obvious that there <i>is</i>&nbsp;such a thing as the right identity. At the very least, Fincke's aforementioned desire to avoid religious baggage should've made him much more dubious about the idea that we ought to go around imposing our identities on other people.<br /><br />And it's not just me saying this, either. <a href="http://www.patheos.com/blogs/camelswithhammers/2014/04/my-atheistic-appreciation-for-religion/" target="_blank">Here's how Fincke himself talked about this issue only a year ago</a>:<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">"[O]ne of the reasons I identify as an atheist and a humanist rather than with any ancient or supernaturalistic religion is precisely because I find religious <i>partiality</i> too <i>stifling</i>. When religions sacralize <i>this</i> text and/or <i>these</i> practices and/or <i>these</i> beliefs the danger is that they tempt people <i>away</i> from finding what is equally rich and exciting in a wide range of <i>other</i> cultural sources and other religions. Being an atheist makes me <i>omnivorous</i> and <i>voracious</i>. I don't tie myself down by thinking that truth about how to live well uniquely, divinely, or authoritatively can be found in this one source in a way that trumps all others."</blockquote>Tell me, if you can, how it's possible "to interweave ideas with an incredible array of medi[a] (from ritual to symbol to architecture to meditative practices to liturgies to songs to chants to moral codes to community structure to identity formation, etc.) which all interact in intricate ways to reinforce each other" <i>without</i>&nbsp;recreating the very same "partiality," restrictiveness, and homogeneity that Fincke used to dislike. Tell me how religious baggage could <i>not</i>&nbsp;follow from&nbsp;the very act of interweaving things that are relatively mandatory (such as having the right values, attending to reason, etc.) with things that are relatively optional (aesthetics, rituals, specific texts, etc.). No, seriously, someone tell me why I would want to help to create a <i>new</i>&nbsp;group of people who think that e.g. morality has any sensible relationship to <i>this</i>&nbsp;particular architectural style or <i>that</i>&nbsp;particular chant or <i>those</i>&nbsp;particular holidays (and who, moreover, attempt to "inculcate" that same belief in others).&nbsp;And while you're answering, remember that this isn't the first time that we've encountered this "interweaving" idea and that&nbsp;<a href="http://rustbeltphilosophy.blogspot.com/2012/02/if-philosophy-were-shirt-i-would-prefer.html" target="_blank">it didn't go well the last time, either</a>.<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">"Though [Fincke, in this case] claims to forswear 'the trappings of religion,' I can only conclude from this inconsistency on [his] part that there's at least one trapping of religion that [he] actually buys into, namely, the idea that we all need a[n interweaved religion or religion-like thing]. That this is a (relatively) distinctly religious idea should be easy to see: the greatest memetic advantage of religions is their capacity to monopolize everything good in an individual's life. This is why we see nonsensical phrases like 'Judeo-Christian' and absurd organizations like BioLogos: without the ability to envelop [i.e., interweave] things that they like into their religion, modern Christians would have no reason to <i>be</i> Christian in the first place...Maybe this helps them have a richer life and maybe it doesn't - not belonging to such a meme, I can't honestly say. Either way, though, this kind of forced memetic creep is the only way to get a[n interweaved system of the sort that Fincke describes]; if we instead successfully 'pursue truth [and] practice philosophy' [i.e., if we instead pursue Fincke's program of omnivorous voraciousness], we'll inevitably come to understand that there is no meaningful [or rational] way to unite all of our traditions, rituals, and communities."</blockquote>So I'll ask again: why is it a good idea for self-identified religious skeptics to create "new religions"? Why, beside overwhelming idiocy, would they think that their new religions will be able to exist and operate without the very same problems that led them to leave the old religions? Because Fincke sure as shit hasn't given me any confidence that this is a good idea. Maybe he thinks that his freethinking credentials make him fireproof, but a flame-retardant suit is only valuable to you if you, y'know, wear it. If you surround yourself with a raging inferno and then start to strip back down to your regular clothes, you have no right to act surprised when you start to smolder.Eli Horowitzhttps://plus.google.com/107677687997893275486noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8924756809871054336.post-56971979884902997262015-02-27T06:39:00.002-08:002015-02-27T06:39:46.028-08:00Weekly webcomic: couture<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://40.media.tumblr.com/95acc6c0a7f6a1c634af774094353f2a/tumblr_njo39txufq1txhseao1_1280.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://40.media.tumblr.com/95acc6c0a7f6a1c634af774094353f2a/tumblr_njo39txufq1txhseao1_1280.png" height="376" width="640" /></a></div><br />Eli Horowitzhttps://plus.google.com/107677687997893275486noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8924756809871054336.post-12681823980202941332015-02-26T10:45:00.002-08:002015-02-26T10:45:24.409-08:00Libertarian World: the least fun theme park ever (or: Sock Man plays Roller Coaster Tycoon)At Libertarian World, the park owners make no special effort to provide you with fun things to do. Pull yourself up by your own enjoyment bootstraps, you parasite.<br /><br />At Libertarian World, there are no rules against cutting in line. The strong take what they want and the weak make do with whatever is left over.<br /><br />At Libertarian World, the rides aren't built to any specific safety standards. Don't worry, though - if they were really that bad, the market would already have taken care of it.<br /><br />The operators of Libertarian World would like to remind you that children shouldn't be brought to Libertarian World. On some fundamental level, Libertarian World just isn't designed to include children.&nbsp;<a href="http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2015/02/parental-rights-and-the-obligation-to-care/" target="_blank">Please, for everyone's sake, don't bring your children to Libertarian World</a>.<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">"The parents' obligation to care for the child isn't about making an agreement with the child, and the lack of such an agreement with the child does not mean the parents have no obligations. The parental obligations come when parents engage in the positive act of treating the child as theirs by asserting their parental rights, and thereby accepting the corresponding obligations. This is most obvious with the legal acquisition of parental rights in adoption, but is no different when biological parents bring a child home from the hospital, or make other positive steps to exercise parental rights by treating the child as theirs...<br /><br />And this is the reason that even 'non-violent' (as if violence is the only form of aggression, I might note) abuse or cruelty or neglect <i>should be</i> actionable in a libertarian world.&nbsp;Infants are helpless, and this is relevant not just because it means they can't consent to their caregivers. It is relevant because it means that accepting parental rights but refusing to accept the corresponding obligations to care for a helpless child is form of breach of contract. Again, the contract is not with the child, but with 'the rest of us'...<br /><br />It says something about the nature of much libertarian thought that the helplessness of children is understood primarily as relevant to their inability to consent to an agreement to be cared for, rather than as requiring that someone take on the obligation to care for them."</blockquote><div>Give Stevie Horwitz this much credit: it <i>does</i>&nbsp;say some things about the nature of libertarian thought that libertarians go to such lengths to deny the idea that we have obligations to care for one another. It just says different things than the thing that Horowitz thinks it says, is all.</div><div><br />For one thing, Horwitz's reasoning tells us (not for the first time) that Horwitz is a shitty philosopher. If it's true that "the helplessness of children" is what "requir[es] that someone take on the obligation to care for them," contract theory has absolutely fucking nothing to do with the situation. After all, children are helpless no matter which contracts the rest of us (allegedly) implicitly agree to uphold. Contracts are so far beside the point that Horwitz's reasoning would work even when his sort of implicit social contract is <i>impossible:</i> if, say, a stranded mother gives birth on an otherwise unpopulated island, the same obligation to care for the child still exists. Shit, even <i>Horwitz himself</i>&nbsp;doesn't even believe that bullshit about "engag[ing] in the positive act of treating the child as theirs" - elsewhere in that article, he says that, "[i]f you created that child and do not wish to care for it yourself, you have an obligation to arrange for its care by finding someone else who wants to acquire those rights." In other words, the obligation is the obligation is the obligation, and that libertarian-sounding contract/positive-act shit is just an ad-hoc kludge designed to hide the fact that libertarianism as such systematically fails to properly account for <i>any</i>&nbsp;moral obligation.<br /><div></div><br /></div><div>Think about it: it isn't just children who are helpless, and it's not as if helplessness is a binary property. All of us are helpless to some degree or another, so, if Horwitz's reasoning holds, we all have obligations to care for one another (to some degree or another) all the time. Moreover, if Horwitz's reasoning holds, these obligations should (at least in principle) "be actionable." But then why bother with libertarianism? Why bother with Horwitz's market-fetishizing ways? Market behaviors are not usually ways to care for one another; they aren't usually ways to address vulnerability by providing care. Quite to the contrary, market behaviors often exacerbate and exploit existing power imbalances (i.e., existing instances of helplessness). <a href="http://rustbeltphilosophy.blogspot.com/2014/06/pay-to-play-for-pay.html" target="_blank">To suggest that we have actionable obligations to remedy those power imbalances is to suggest that we interfere with markets frequently and in significant ways</a>, which, despite Horwitz's exhortations to the contrary, is kinda the exact opposite of what would happen "in a libertarian world."<br /><br />This whole this is such a disaster for Horwitz that it actually directly contradicts his own thinking. <a href="http://rustbeltphilosophy.blogspot.com/2014/08/sock-mans-greatest-nemesis-himself.html" target="_blank">Earlier</a>, we saw Horwitz claim that "government intervention" was the wrong approach to take with respect to racism because "markets tend to penalize racist behavior by raising the costs, and [because] markets improve living standards for all." But okay: if it's a bad idea to support actionable obligations to support adults who are helpless due to circumstances, why would it be a good idea to support actionable obligations to support children (who are helpless by definition)? Why not just let the market handle that case as well? Whatever answer Horwitz comes up with - if, that is, he's even bright enough to know that he has to come up with an answer - will inevitably be a double-edged sword, because the same fundamental reasoning (and, to a significant enough degree, the same fundamental evidence) applies to infants and adults.<br /><br />Libertarianism, in short, doesn't do well with obligations. Normally that doesn't make libertarians sweat very much, because normally libertarians can deploy some Ayn-Rand-esque rhetoric to convince people that they have no obligations to other (healthy) adults. When it comes to kids, however, even hardcore libertarians will hesitate before going down the whole get-a-job-you-parasite road. And, following the aphorism, it's in that moment of hesitation that their whole project is lost.</div>Eli Horowitzhttps://plus.google.com/107677687997893275486noreply@blogger.com11tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8924756809871054336.post-52521959092153273442015-02-26T08:56:00.002-08:002015-02-26T08:56:29.085-08:00The Meta-Game(s): a clusterfuckAh, it feels good to get back to my roots, such as they are. <a href="http://rustbeltphilosophy.blogspot.com/2009/10/on-deceptive-ease-of-wisdom.html" target="_blank">Waaaaay back in 2009, I spent a little time playing with the idea of wisdom</a>. (Actually, I'm fairly positive that there were more posts than that, but I can't find 'em. At any rate...) Now, lo these six years later, <a href="http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://www.philosophersmag.com/index.php/tpm-mag-articles/11-essays/6-does-philosophy-betray-both-reason-and-humanity" target="_blank">it looks like it's that time again</a>.<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">"Universities around the world have, built into their intellectual/institutional structure, a seriously defective philosophy of inquiry [which] holds that, in order to help promote human welfare, academia must devote itself to the pursuit of knowledge[, which], once acquired...can be applied to help solve social problems. It is this 'knowledge-inquiry' philosophy that betrays both reason and humanity."</blockquote>Give Nicholas Maxwell this much credit: he's at least taking this stuff seriously. It's also good to take it <i>rationally,</i>&nbsp;which he doesn't end up doing, but taking this stuff seriously is not a bad idea.<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">"The extraordinarily successful pursuit of knowledge and technological know-how has been of immense benefit, and has made the modern world possible. It has also made possible all our current global problems. Modern science and technology have made possible modern industry, agriculture, medicine and hygiene, which in turn have made possible global warming, lethal modern warfare, explosive population growth, the destruction of natural habitats and rapid extinction of species, pollution of earth, sea and air, vast inequalities of wealth and power around the globe.<br /><br />The problem is the gross and very damaging irrationality of knowledge-inquiry."</blockquote>As you can perhaps begin to see, Maxwell is pulling the old correlation/causation switch. He's certainly not wrong to say that "all our current global problems" wouldn't have been possible without the knowledge that has been produced through the so-called "knowledge-inquiry" academy. Then again, our current global problems wouldn't have been possible without all sorts of stuff: they wouldn't have been possible without the history of capitalism and industrialization, the wouldn't have been possible without the agricultural revolution, they wouldn't have been possible if a disease had wiped out humanity early in its existence, and so on. By identifying "knowledge-inquiry" as (not just <i>a</i>&nbsp;problem but) <i>the</i>&nbsp;problem, Maxwell commits himself to a very specific set of ideas, not the least important of which is the idea that we could solve our problems by fixing "knowledge-inquiry." Or, in his own words:<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">"What we need is a kind of academic inquiry that puts problems of living at the heart of the enterprise, and is rationally designed and devoted to helping humanity learn how to make progress towards as good and wise a world as possible. The basic intellectual aim should be to seek and promote wisdom, understood to be the capacity to realise what is of value in life, for oneself and others...A basic task of the university is to help people discover what is genuinely of value in life, and how it is to be realised...<br /><br />None of this can be done as long as our universities are dominated by knowledge-inquiry. Giving priority to tackling problems of knowledge excludes tackling problems of living from the intellectual domain of inquiry – or pushes the task to the periphery and marginalises its importance."</blockquote>As so often happens on this blog, there's so much wrong with this that I hardly know where to start. For one thing, it's flat-out ludicrous to say that "knowledge-inquiry" has "exclude[d] problems of living from the intellectual domain of inquiry" or even "marginalise[d]" them. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academy#15th_century_accademie" target="_blank">Fields like philosophy, theology, and literature have been part of the academy for literally as long as the modern academy has existed</a>, and the humanities have only expanded as time has gone on, eventually coming to include psychology, political science, anthropology, history, sociology, all manner of demographic-specific studies, rhetoric, economics, and plenty of others that I'm sure I'm forgetting about. If that's what it looks like to exclude "problems of living" from the academy or minimize them, then I'll eat my own fucking foot.<br /><br />Now, granted, the fact that the academy has <i>tried</i> to "tackl[e] problems of living" through the study of the humanities doesn't mean that it has <i>succeeded.</i>&nbsp;Quite obviously, it hasn't succeeded: at best, humanity as a whole has only made some minimal progress in solving our "problems of living," so the academy (which is a proper subset of all human activity) can't be credited with any great strides in that regard. But this suggests that the humanities - i.e., the fields that (purport to) study "what is of value in life, for oneself and others" - might not be as useful as Maxwell thinks. In other words, the historical failure of the humanities (to this point, anyway) should suggest that "wisdom-inquiry" might not be much of a solution at all.<br /><br />In particular, Maxwell is assuming that these "problems of living" - whatever they are; he conveniently fails to specify their nature - <i>can be solved,</i>&nbsp;which is a tremendously complicated and unwarranted thing to assume (especially without having identified which problems he's even talking about). It's (epistemically)&nbsp;<i>possible </i>that we as a species could make real progress in "discover[ing] what is genuinely of value in life, and how it is to be realised," but it's also possible that we <i>can't</i>&nbsp;make any such progress. For all Maxwell knows, that sort of thing just isn't feasible. (To reiterate for the sake of the optimists out there, we sure haven't come close to that yet, right?) Indeed, for all Maxwell knows, it isn't even good enough for us to know what's important and how to get there. I mean, it happens all the time that an individual person knows (or, at least, believes) that X is important and knows how to get X and yet still fails to get X - what makes Maxwell think that that phenomenon will suddenly vanish once we achieve "wisdom"? How does he know that, for example, <a href="http://rustbeltphilosophy.blogspot.com/2015/02/nightmares-are-dreams-too.html" target="_blank">our brains aren't wired in such a way that we will consistently choose <i>not</i>&nbsp;to pursue the things that really matter</a>?<br /><br />Unfortunately for him, the only way to know this would be through what he calls "knowledge-inquiry" - that is, through a program of hard-scientific research and technological development. Maxwell's idea of "wisdom-inquiry" would have us reorder things so that the "social science[s are] intellectually more fundamental than [the] natural science[s]," but that's a very tricky thing to pull off, because in fact the natural world is more fundamental than our problems. We may <i>want</i>&nbsp;to solve our "problems of living" through "wisdom" - that is, in Maxwell's words, through "policies, political programmes, philosophies of life" - but there's a real possibility that the only <i>feasible</i>&nbsp;solutions are technological (or, more problematically for Maxwell's position, that the only feasible solution is for there to be no human life and thus no problems thereof). That other stuff can and does help - don't get me wrong, there's a clear difference between places with good policies and places with bad ones. But we still haven't found any policies, programs, or philosophies that will <i>solve life's problems as such;</i>&nbsp;sadly, we haven't even come close, though not for lack of trying. Presumably there's a reason for that, and presumably that reason is a hard-scientific one, but on Maxwell's view the task is the task and the hard sciences just have to deal with it no matter what the facts might turn out to be. That dogmatism on his part is, frankly, flamboyantly irrational.<br /><br />(Oh, and on top of everything else, "wisdom-inquiry" is clearly just a specific variety of "knowledge-inquiry" and not a separate thing altogether. "Wisdom," in Maxwell's sense of the word, is also a kind of knowledge that we pursue in order to apply it to social problems; ergo, "wisdom-inquiry" is by definition "knowledge-inquiry." Just sayin'.)<br /><br />So, okay, ought we direct our inquiries toward relatively important rather than relatively unimportant ends? (I.e., ought the meta-game be directed toward what's valuable?) No shit, yes. But we have to make sure that those ends are also <i>realistic.</i>&nbsp;(I.e., the meta-game also has to be constrained to what's possible.) When we work to achieve the impossible, that work is, to an extent, wasted - and, as Maxwell himself says, more problems tend to crop up in the meantime. He sees the unfocused search for knowledge as a betrayal of humanity, and to a degree I have to concur. But, for my part, I can't think of a more significant way to betray us than convincing us to spend our lives and resources interminably chasing after a fantasy that we can never achieve, all the while putting ourselves through more and more of the very same misery that we claim we're trying to eliminate.Eli Horowitzhttps://plus.google.com/107677687997893275486noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8924756809871054336.post-40236390493551500912015-02-25T08:47:00.000-08:002015-02-25T08:47:01.399-08:00Links!<b>Welp, guess Jason Brennan thinks that colleges shouldn't exist, either</b><br /><a href="http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2015/02/college-speech-codes-a-quick-critique/" target="_blank">Interesting</a>. See also <a href="http://rustbeltphilosophy.blogspot.com/2014/05/awaking-from-dream-of-ideological.html" target="_blank">1</a>, <a href="http://rustbeltphilosophy.blogspot.com/2012/05/sure-i-want-government-just-not-one.html" target="_blank">2</a>. I'm kinda beginning to wonder if good ol' Jason isn't secretly in favor of something really extreme, like eliminating society as we know it (or - gasp! - voluntary extinction). There sorta doesn't seem to be anything else that would satisfy him, really.<br /><br /><br /><b>I mean, really, are college speech codes worse than wars?</b><br />Is Jason Brennan gonna come out against the diamond industry next? <a href="http://www.icij.org/project/swiss-leaks/diamond-dealers-deep-trouble-bank-documents-shine-light-secret-ways" target="_blank">Because he should</a>.<br /><div><blockquote class="tr_bq">"'Diamonds are a great way to launder money, to hide money, to evade taxes, and all the rest,' said Ian Smillie, a cofounder of the Kimberley Process, a United Nations effort to stamp out what are often called blood diamonds or conflict diamonds — gems that are exploited to finance wars. 'Half a million died in the Angolan civil war,' Smillie said of wars fueled by blood diamonds. 'Tens of thousands died in Sierra Leone, Congo, and elsewhere. It was a huge humanitarian crisis that destabilized huge regions.'<br /><br />As a compact, stable, and transferable store of value, diamonds offer enormous advantages to smugglers, money launderers, and tax evaders. In many ways they are better even than cash. Easier to carry and to conceal, they are, in the wholesale market, almost as liquid and easily sold anywhere. They leave no paper trail and are virtually impossible to trace. They don't go bad, can't be burned up in a fire and aren't devalued by inflation."</blockquote>To paraphrase Brennan's reasoning, I don't want to give diamond companies the right to foment civil wars. It's one thing to say that if these companies were run by smart, benevolent, competent justice fairies, then the fairies should get to buy and sell diamonds. It's another to say that actual diamond businesspeople – people who have their own agendas, agendas often in conflict with the interests of vulnerable populations – should do so.<br /><br />Read more at that link to discover why the same applies to bankers (and, therefore, why Brennan should also come out against banks).<br /><br /><br /><b>What's my age, again?</b><br />Based on the calendar year, I thought I was in my late twenties. <a href="http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2015/02/10/does-jeb-bushs-chief-technology-officer-still-believe-women-are-sluts" target="_blank">Based on my nation's politics, however, I may be closer to negative two hundred or so</a>.<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">"More than 40 tweets were deleted from [Jeb Bush CTO Ethan] Czahor's timeline after the news broke that Bush had hired him...What is Czahor suddenly ashamed of? Well, according to his Twitter feed, he thinks a whole lot of women are 'sluts.' In 2009, Czahor wrote (all tweet quotes are [sic]) 'new study confirms old belief: college female art majors are sluts, science majors are also sluts but uglier,' and 'most people don't know that "halloween" is German for "night that girls with low self-esteem dress like sluts."'"</blockquote>Similarly, <a href="http://dailysignal.com/2015/02/24/tips-politicians-not-uh-oh-moment-cpac/" target="_blank">the Heritage Foundation</a> would like to remind Republican politicians not to describe other people as being "faggots," not because it's wrong but because that sort of thing "is very controversial." So it has to be some time in the early 1800s, right? And not actually 2015?<br /><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><b>Someone please fire Ross Douthat</b><br /><a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/02/no-escape-from-history/385352/" target="_blank">The guy obviously has no meaningful intellectual standards</a>.</div><div><blockquote class="tr_bq">"Ross is disturbed to see the president drawing an 'implied equivalence' between the barbarism of ISIS and the 'the incredibly complicated multi-century story of medieval Christendom's conflict with Islam.' This will not do. The present conflict in the Middle East is also an 'incredibly complicated multi-century story.'"</blockquote></div><div><br /></div><div><br /><b>NBA update!</b><br />(1) I approve of <a href="http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2343455-golden-state-warriors-and-houston-rockets-unveil-chinese-new-year-jerseys" target="_blank">Chinese-language uniforms</a>. That particular change isn't as exciting to me as <a href="http://rustbeltphilosophy.blogspot.com/2013/02/the-nba-times-they-are-changin.html" target="_blank">sleeves</a> were, but then I don't speak Chinese. (2) OKC is going to make the playoffs. They're going to be fine. Everybody calm down. (3) The entire southwest division is <i>still</i>&nbsp;over .500! (4) With Chris Bosh having been declared legally dead or whatever, I fully support the Detroit Pistons' bid to make the playoffs. (5) I'm pretty sure that I was dead wrong about Steve Kerr. The Warriors are awesome and I kinda hope they fuck everybody up come the postseason.<br /><br /><br /><b>SF update!</b><br />So apparently Capcom doesn't know where Canada is:<br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-LGOxhLHN2gk/VO38G3EiMMI/AAAAAAAAF1o/g6mOhCNaSEI/s1600/USA%2BUSA.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-LGOxhLHN2gk/VO38G3EiMMI/AAAAAAAAF1o/g6mOhCNaSEI/s1600/USA%2BUSA.png" height="504" width="640" /></a></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-gcZkJg588D4/VO38IbqlkqI/AAAAAAAAF1w/bJtJpjkjw-A/s1600/canada.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-gcZkJg588D4/VO38IbqlkqI/AAAAAAAAF1w/bJtJpjkjw-A/s1600/canada.png" height="312" width="640" /></a></div><br />...that's all. That's the update. Hope it was worth your while.</div>Eli Horowitzhttps://plus.google.com/107677687997893275486noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8924756809871054336.post-50005719406928843402015-02-25T08:24:00.004-08:002015-02-25T08:24:45.552-08:00Revenge of the jocksAnd the plot thickens - perhaps, in this case, with the help of some kind of <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/08/education/edlife/football-major-basketball-minor.html" target="_blank">plot growth hormone or plot protein shake or something</a>.<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">"Football players might devote as many as 60 hours a week to their sport, with little time for studies. Graduation rates for Division I football and men's basketball players hover around 50 percent, according to federal statistics. The University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, has found that over the last two decades, some 3,000 students, about half of them athletes, took courses that sometimes did not meet or require any work. Two former players, Rashanda McCants and Devon Ramsay, filed a lawsuit in January claiming the university and N.C.A.A. failed to fulfill their stated missions of educating them...<br /><br />Proponents [of the status quo] point to majors in other vocations like music and theater, where students pursue professional passions with little hope of performing on Broadway or in Carnegie Hall. Why is basketball or football so different?"</blockquote>Yes, generic person to whom all rhetorical questions are implicitly addressed, why <i>not</i>&nbsp;turn basketball into its own major? There could totally be basketball coursework:<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">"Dr. Pargman, who started a doctoral program in sports psychology at Florida State and has written several books on athletes, proposes a sample curriculum for a sports performance major that follows two years of basic studies, including anatomy and physiology, educational psychology and a particular sport's offensive and defensive strategies. By graduation, players would have taken courses in public speaking, nutrition, kinesiology and business law. Practices become labs, supervised and graded by their coaches, though grades wouldn't depend on game performance — no A for scoring a touchdown...<br /><br />Dr. Coplin, who has spent his career designing programs to serve students in the job market, believes the skills learned through sports — from highly specialized training to learning a complex playbook to simply being a good teammate— are more valuable to employers than classroom knowledge."</blockquote>Those aren't the only ideas, either - players could also be assigned "an Excel lesson in which a player tracks his performance using trend lines and percentage change," they could be required "to learn the science behind the muscles [they're] using," and all sorts of stuff. So why not, right? I mean, aside from the fact that, as this author admits, "[t]here are exercise science, nutrition and kinesiology concentrations at schools across the country." Beside that, why not?<br /><br />If you're someone who conceives of the academy as a place to advance human knowledge, you shouldn't have a very hard time answering that question. But let's say, for the sake of having fun, that you're not such a person. Let's say that you are, oh I dunno, someone who believes that the humanities have a place in the academy but that the humanities aren't meant primarily (or perhaps even at all) to advance human knowledge. In <i>that</i>&nbsp;case, why exclude athletics from the academy?<br /><br />Think about it: playing a sport <a href="http://rustbeltphilosophy.blogspot.com/2013/11/the-humanities-does-not-denote-magical.html" target="_blank">contributes to your judgment</a>, right? It can be <a href="http://rustbeltphilosophy.blogspot.com/2013/11/presynchronicity.html" target="_blank">therapeutic</a>. Sports can and often do <a href="http://rustbeltphilosophy.blogspot.com/2013/11/daaaaaaaaamn-synchronicity.html" target="_blank">transmit cultural inheritances</a>. Playing a sport can help you <a href="http://rustbeltphilosophy.blogspot.com/2013/12/sorta-kinda.html" target="_blank">explore your own depths</a>. In short, athletics are just as magical as any supporter of the magical humanities might wish. So if the magical humanities are really as great as people say, then we should expect all of those people to get right on board with this majoring-in-athletics idea. I mean, what's good for the goose, and all that.<br /><br />Or, alternatively, if those people <i>don't</i>&nbsp;support the idea of creating athletics-based majors, well...I think you can figure out the rest.Eli Horowitzhttps://plus.google.com/107677687997893275486noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8924756809871054336.post-21852560026284042412015-02-24T11:50:00.002-08:002015-02-24T11:50:15.171-08:00Nightmares are dreams, tooSo be careful when you talk about your dream, because <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/11/opinion/mark-bittman-what-is-the-purpose-of-society.html" target="_blank">it might not be a good one</a>.<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">"Shouldn't adequate shelter, clothing, food and health care be universal? Isn't everyone owed a society that works toward guaranteeing the well-being of its citizens? Shouldn't we prioritize avoiding self-destruction?"</blockquote>That there is food guy Mark Bittman. Being as he is a food guy and not a politics guy or philosophy guy, it's perhaps predictable that there are some holes in his ideas about "the meaning of life" and "[t]he business of America." For example: what does he mean by "a society that works toward guaranteeing the well-being of its citizens"? How much work does a society have to do in order to qualify for Bittman's approval? Because our society in the US does do <i>some</i>&nbsp;work toward that end, and yet he seems to be (rightly) dissatisfied with it. So how much more work do we have to do, exactly (or even approximately)?<br /><br />And that's not the only problem, either. The whole working-towards-well-being thing smacks of pragmatism, which is a bit at odds with Bittman's idealistic tone. One can only assume that he originally wanted to promote the ideal of a society that <i>really does</i>&nbsp;guarantee its citizens' well-being but then, giving it a second thought, ended up settling for a more realistic and more feasible goal. That's not a bad compromise to make in and of itself - pragmatism is in many ways better than unfettered utopianism - but it does suggest that Bittman should maybe have spent a little more time trying to identify just how large the gap between the ideal and the reality will end up being. Conceivably, that gap could be large enough that our reality will always be nightmarish; that is, it could be large enough that we <i>shouldn't</i>&nbsp;"prioritize avoiding self-destruction."<br /><br />Speaking of which, who says that a society only has responsibilities towards its own citizens? Foreigners (or resident aliens, etc.) aren't worth less just because they're foreign, right? I'm guessing that Bittman's implicit jingoism is purely accidental, but that's kinda my point: if his dream implicitly devalues the vast majority of humans, how good of a dream is it? The same question goes for non-human animals, and <i>their</i>&nbsp;implicit devaluation&nbsp;is particularly inexcusable given Bittman's food-guy status. <a href="http://markbittman.com/horrific-animal-abuses-uncovered-at-smithfiel/" target="_blank">He knows enough about our food system to criticize it</a> (again, rightly), but then he goes and says stuff like this:<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">"We don't all agree on goals, and we don't agree on whether things are working or in need of repair. For example, is contemporary American agriculture a system for nourishing people and providing a livelihood for farmers? Or is it one for denuding the nation's topsoil while poisoning land, water, workers and consumers and enriching corporations? Our collective actions would indicate that our principles favor the latter; that has to change."</blockquote>Not to be glib or anything, but factory farming is perfectly compatible with "nourishing people and providing a livelihood for farmers." (It's also perfectly compatible with the other thing, for whatever that's worth.) So, to reiterate: just how good of a dream is this? How many more restrictions and qualifications would we have to add before it became a good dream, and how workable is it to follow all of those restrictions and qualifications at once?<br /><br />To help illustrate my point, consider <a href="http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-climate-food-20150118-story.html" target="_blank">the following real-life example of a new policy that affects the food world and that's aimed at "avoiding self-destruction"</a>:<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">"The political clash over climate change has entered new territory that does not involve a massive oil pipeline or a subsidy for renewable energy, but a quaint federal chart that tries to nudge Americans toward a healthy diet.<br /><br />The food pyramid, that 3-decade-old backbone of grade-school nutrition lessons, has become a test case of how far the Obama administration is willing to push its global warming agenda...The food pyramid — recently refashioned in the shape of a dinner plate — could be reworked to consider the heavy carbon impact of raising animals for meat."</blockquote>This sort of thing has economic effects on farmers. If you believe the corporate flacks over at the Heritage Foundation, it also has nutritional (i.e., well-being) effects on citizens:<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">"'There is an anti-meat agenda out there, and this is a way to go after meat,' said Daren Bakst, a fellow at the Heritage Foundation, the conservative research and advocacy organization. 'We need to just focus on nutrition. Once you bring up these other things, it undermines the legitimacy of the guidelines.'"</blockquote>Granted, the Heritage people are almost certainly lying in order to promote their capitalist agenda, but the basic point remains: the dreams that we're talking about here are <i>extraordinarily</i>&nbsp;complicated, and it's extremely tempting to paper over that complexity by intentionally showing only the good parts of the dream. Sure, you'll be hard-pressed to find someone who's against food or shelter or nourishment in the abstract, but can you actually get all of those things <i>in reality</i>&nbsp;without wrecking the environment, creating an oppressed labor class, systematically abusing other animals, and so on? In other words, is your dream just someone else's nightmare?<br /><br />Nor is this a problem that applies only to specific political spats or timely hot-button issues. <a href="http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/loosemore20140724" target="_blank">Richard Loosemore's analysis of AI motivation</a>, for instance, accidentally illustrates the point in a much broader, much more abstract way, start with<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">"an excerpt from the Intelligence Explosion FAQ, published by the so-called 'Machine Intelligence Research Institute':<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">Even a machine successfully designed with motivations of benevolence towards humanity could easily go awry when it discovered implications of its decision criteria unanticipated by its designers. For example, a superintelligence programmed to maximize human happiness might find it easier to rewire human neurology so that humans are happiest when sitting quietly in jars than to build and maintain a utopian world that caters to the complex and nuanced whims of current human neurology.</blockquote>Setting aside the question of whether happy bottled humans are feasible (one presumes the bottles are filled with dopamine, and that a continuous flood of dopamine does indeed generate eternal happiness), there seems to be a glaring inconsistency between the two predicates [is an AI that is superintelligent enough to be unstoppable], and [believes that benevolence toward humanity might involve forcing human beings to do something violently against their will.]<br /><br />If you or I were to suggest that the best way to achieve universal human happiness was to forcibly rewire the brain of everyone on the planet so they became happy when sitting in bottles of dopamine, those around us would probably take that as a sign of insanity." (bracketed sections in the original)</blockquote>Loosemore's article is rather complicated in its own right, and there's a lot to say about it aside from what I'm about to say. (For instance: he does a really good job understanding that the stupidity of computers is directly related to the stupidity of programmers.) For the sake of this post, though, we'll stick with the part I've just quoted, because that's the part where&nbsp;Loosemore takes Bittman's error and&nbsp;generalizes it. Bittman assumes that our individual desires can be reconciled with our political values - that, say, we can desire both universal material wealth (in the form of universal shelter, healthcare, etc.) and universal well-being without contradiction. Loosemore takes that assumption one step further by equating "benevolence toward humanity" with "[our] will," as if the set of things we want is coextensive with the set of things we need. Now, maybe that's more true than my pessimism would make it seem, and maybe we can bring those two sets into very close alignment; likewise, maybe Bittman isn't totally wrong to think that we can build a society that reasonably approximates his ideals. But why would we take their word for it? Why, in other words, would we commit ourselves to that optimistic belief without engaging in precisely the sort of investigation that Bittman and Loosemore refuse to do?<br /><br />There is, after all, no small possibility that the most ideal version of "benevolence toward humanity might involve forcing human beings to do something violently against their will." (At least, if "their will" is a coherent referent; if not, Loosemore's complaint doesn't even have a leg to stand on.) Just look at what we're going through now with respect to LGBT rights: there's no shortage of bigoted humans out there whose wills (or, in their terms, "consciences") are being trampled for the sake of a greater benevolence. That particular fight might dwindle to a negligible size eventually, but history indicates very strongly that some people will always be pissed off about some other people's happiness - how, in that case, could benevolence <i>not</i>&nbsp;involve contravening someone's will?<br /><br />And I don't even have to talk about interpersonal conflict, either. Everybody has desires that aren't healthy. (<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d5CLmflrwIA" target="_blank">Just ask Rufus Wainwright</a>.) To the extent that we want things that are overall bad for us, benevolence - i.e., treating us in a way that maximizes our welfare - is not only compatible with violating our wills but actually <i>requires</i>&nbsp;violating our wills. Again, maybe this wouldn't need to happen as often or as emphatically as it does in the dopamine-bottle scenario that Loosemore describes, but until we do the relevant research we can't know the precise relationship between benevolence and the contravention of human wills.<br /><br />In particular, we can't simply fall back on the lazy assertion that "those around us would probably take [the dopamine-bottle idea] as a sign of insanity." To do that, as Loosemore does, would be to deny the reality of "the complex and nuanced whims of current human neurology" for the sake of promoting a base intuition, which is precisely the sort of thing that we could expect to lead to a nightmarish outcome. "Who cares," Loosemore is essentially saying, "what we're actually like? We <i>think</i>&nbsp;that we're like so-and-so, so obviously any dream worth dreaming will proceed according to so-and-so." Pardon me for my skepticism, but that's a dream that I'm not quite willing to sign up for, not least of all because <i>Loosemore himself</i>&nbsp;<i>derides the very same line of reasoning later in his article:</i><br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">"The significance of the doctrine of logical infallibility [which underlies many doomsday-AI scenarios] is as follows. The AI can sometimes execute a reasoning process, then come to a conclusion and then, when it is faced with empirical evidence that its conclusion may be unsound, it is <b><i>incapable </i></b>of considering the hypothesis that its own reasoning engine may not have taken it to a sensible place. The system does not second guess its conclusions...But it gets worse. Those who assume the doctrine of logical infallibility often say that if the system comes to a conclusion, and if some humans (like the engineers who built the system) protest that there are manifest reasons to think that the reasoning that led to this conclusion was faulty, then there is a sense in which the AGI's intransigence is correct, or appropriate, or perfectly consistent with 'intelligence.'"</blockquote>Got that? When it comes to artificial intelligences, Loosemore takes great pains to distinguish "intransigence" from "intelligence": the latter, he says, is incompatible with the inability to second-guess one's own conclusions in the face of contradictory empirical evidence. But when it comes to <i>natural</i>&nbsp;intelligences (i.e., humanity), Loosemore is the first one to <i>conflate</i>&nbsp;intransigence and intelligence, assuming (despite the abundance of empirical evidence to the contrary) that our wills and our intuitions necessarily reflect the truth about what will satisfy us. In short, if Loosemore is suggesting that only an intransigent intelligence can produce a nightmarish world, then he hasn't done himself many favors: we have just such an intelligence now in the form of us, and what he's proposing would do nothing to unseat or disempower that intelligence.<br /><br />Which, I guess, brings us more or less full circle, as I'd started this whole thing with <a href="http://rustbeltphilosophy.blogspot.com/2015/02/define-nightmare.html" target="_blank">an AI-inspired discussion of what a moral nightmare would actually look like</a>. (Incidentally, Scott Alexander hasn't once mentioned Loosemore on his blog. Go figure.) But this isn't the only circle that I could've drawn. Many of <a href="http://rustbeltphilosophy.blogspot.com/search/label/American%20dream" target="_blank">my posts about the American dream</a> also describe various American nightmares;&nbsp;<a href="http://rustbeltphilosophy.blogspot.com/2014/05/awaking-from-dream-of-ideological.html" target="_blank">the dream of ideological neutrality</a> likewise has more darkness than light; and I'm sure that you can pick your own favorite examples. Turns out, it's really easy to dream - which, in and of itself, is probably just fine. The problem, alas, is our tendency to uncritically accept the ease of dreaming rather than trying to see it for the deception that it so often is.Eli Horowitzhttps://plus.google.com/107677687997893275486noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8924756809871054336.post-36770726301985313742015-02-24T07:01:00.001-08:002015-02-24T07:01:16.567-08:00Don't bother putting up<a href="http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/2015/02/history-manifesto/" target="_blank">Just skip to the "shut up" part instead</a>.<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">"If the authors of <i>The History Manifesto</i> get their way, though, Porch sitters [i.e., Front Porch Republic people] shouldn't expect to find academic histories that care a whit about limits, sacrality, place, groundedness in a community...<br /><br />Cleverly, [<i>Manifesto</i>&nbsp;authors Jo]&nbsp;Guldi and [David] Armitage liquidate the era of subjectivity and shaky, unempirical histories by basing their conclusions on as many un-argued assumptions as possible."</blockquote>Normally, I'd suggest that Aaron Weinacht justify his focus on "limits, sacrality, place, [and] groundedness in a community," but it turns out that Weinacht goes to great lengths to make such justification impossible for himself. In particular, when he disputes the various "un-argued assumptions" that he attributes to G&amp;A (and for which, I suspect, G&amp;A <i>do</i>&nbsp;argue; <a href="http://rustbeltphilosophy.blogspot.com/2014/10/i-should-really-have-history-tag.html" target="_blank">see also</a>), he eliminates any possibility of justifying his own historical framework. Observe:<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">"Assumption One: History is a science...the authors either believe history can be a science or they don’t understand the concept. Neither possibility inspires confidence. "</blockquote>So, okay - Weinacht doesn't think that history is or even could be a science. But then what <i>is</i>&nbsp;it? And if it's not a science, then how can he expect anybody else to care about limits, sacredness, and whatever?<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">"Assumption Two: The kinds of historical questions people want to know the answers to, can be answered empirically."</blockquote>Again, if Weinacht doesn't want to do empirical work in history, then on what grounds does he justify his talk about limits and such? Presumably he hasn't reached those conclusions in the <i>absence</i>&nbsp;of empirical information, right? Surely <i>some</i>&nbsp;observations must have gone to support those ideas of his. But his own complaints against G&amp;A would also prevent him from using those observations to bolster his own case.<br /><br />One more time:<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">"Assumption Three: History can provide certain (i.e. 'lawlike', see Assumption One) conclusions about the past, present, and future."</blockquote>As in the other two cases, Weinacht can gripe all he likes about the idea of historical laws, but in that case he has to explain just what the fuck he means when he tells other people to "care...about limits, sacrality, place, [and] groundedness in a community." If those things don't figure into some kind of important lawlike regularities that can be found throughout history - in other words, if they're only idiosyncratic features of certain societies or if they're unrelated to goods like social stability or happiness - why <i>should</i>&nbsp;we care about them? Seen as a whole, Weinacht's position simply makes no sense.<br /><br />But, of course, that's what happens when you argue for magic over science: shit stops making sense. Who knows, though - maybe Weinacht believes in "limits" on sensibility. Maybe empiricism would conflict with his sense of the scared. Maybe, in other words, he's stupid on purpose. Whatever the reason may be, there's no value in trying to probe his deranged mindset any further. History may not be entirely scientific yet and it will certainly be difficult to move the field in a more scientific direction, but Weinacht must be wrong about the field if it is to have any academic value whatsoever.Eli Horowitzhttps://plus.google.com/107677687997893275486noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8924756809871054336.post-42812592432640712462015-02-23T13:26:00.000-08:002015-02-23T13:26:39.265-08:00This Chapel Hill thing has made everybody lose their damn minds*I mean, <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/local/wp/2015/02/11/chapel-hill-killings-shine-light-on-particular-tensions-between-islam-and-atheism/" target="_blank">what</a>...<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">"The alleged assassination by an outspoken North Carolina atheist of three of his Muslim neighbors is shining a light on particular, deep tensions between two tiny American groups: Muslims and atheists."</blockquote>...<a href="http://www.post-gazette.com/opinion/2015/02/22/Defend-the-faith-and-use-it-to-stand-up-to-extremists/stories/201502220045" target="_blank">the fuck</a>...<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">"Neither God nor God's teaching is the cause of our violent hatreds.<br /><br />Yet we, leaders of three major faiths, admit some measure of responsibility for the violence done in our names even though we are not in any way responsible for these acts, which we find horrific and repugnant."</blockquote>...<a href="http://barefootbum.blogspot.com/2015/02/criticism-of-religion.html" target="_blank">is even</a>...<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">"We will generally condemn Hicks, he is no longer 'one of us' in any sense. He is no longer a New Atheist because we <i>define </i>New Atheism to exclude infantile personal violence: it's our group, and we can define ourselves as we please."</blockquote>...going on? Craig Hicks didn't (even allegedly) <i>assassinate</i>&nbsp;anyone. That's a ludicrous verb to apply to this case. <a href="http://rustbeltphilosophy.blogspot.com/2012/03/maybe-founders-werent-so-smart-after.html" target="_blank">Trayvon Martin wasn't assassinated</a>, right? <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2776981/GUILTY-White-man-shot-dead-black-teen-gas-station-argument-loud-music-convicted-degree-murder.html" target="_blank">Jordan Davis wasn't assassinated</a>. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_George_Tiller" target="_blank">George Tiller, on the other hand, <i>was</i>&nbsp;assassinated</a>. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscone%E2%80%93Milk_assassinations" target="_blank">Harvey Milk was assassinated</a>. Deah Barakat, Yusor Mohammad, and Razan abu-Salha were not assassinated.<br /><br />Nor does it make any sense to respond to this (or any similar) situation by futzing around with group-identity definitions. At best, that strategy produces useless theoretical sub-divisions that have no reasonable basis in reality, as in the Barefoot Bum's attempt to deflect blame from "New Atheism"; at worst, futzing with definitions produces out-and-out nonsense, as in the case of the faith leaders who simultaneously "admit...responsibility" and deny that they are "in any way responsible." Much though I understand the desire to find a free pass out of this sort of trouble, no such thing exists.<br /><br />It's not, however, as though we have to do nothing. There certainly are ways to <i>address</i> misbehavior on the part of someone who belongs to a preferred group. It's just that all of those ways are painful and costly - which is as it should be. When religious believers are caught murdering people or preaching bigotry or promoting pseudoscientific garbage for religious reasons, their co-believers need to be able to explain what went wrong. Likewise, when nonbelievers do the same types of things, their co-nonbelievers also need to explain what went wrong. "That guy's crazy" won't do the trick, nor will, "I dunno, but <i>his</i> [insert -ism here] isn't <i>my</i>&nbsp;[-ism]." Only two basic types of explanations exist, and neither is comfortable: either the wrongdoer had the wrong ideas or the right ideas weren't good enough to prevent the wrongdoing.<br /><br />So, okay, are you a religious skeptic who thinks that the problem was Hicks's self-identified "anti-theist" position? That's cool - just, y'know, tell me where you draw the line, why your line is more theoretically justifiable than his, and why your line is absolutely, positively going to prevent violence in a way that Hicks's line didn't. <a href="http://rustbeltphilosophy.blogspot.com/2015/02/bigotry-bigotry-everywhere.html" target="_blank">Not so easy</a>, <a href="https://twitter.com/larryniven/status/568149469709139968" target="_blank">right</a>?<br /><br />Or, alternatively, say you wanna blame our <a href="http://www.michaelnugent.com/2015/02/16/craig-hicks-ethnicity-native-american-muslims-christians/" target="_blank">gun (and/or car) culture</a>&nbsp;(<a href="http://rustbeltphilosophy.blogspot.com/2014/01/compare-and-contrast-guns-cars.html" target="_blank">cf</a>) for Hicks's decision. Go for it - but then you'll be tacitly admitting that the gun culture is (at least sometimes) more powerful than (at least a very good approximation of) <a href="http://www.michaelnugent.com/2015/02/13/chapel-hill-killer-craig-hicks-facebook-page-beliefs/" target="_blank">ethical atheism</a>.** Same goes if you want to blame the general atmosphere of anti-Muslim sentiment that has recently served as the flip side of much American nationalism (<a href="http://rustbeltphilosophy.blogspot.com/2015/02/links_23.html" target="_blank">cf</a>). Kinda sucks to admit that, doesn't it?<br /><br />Now, mind you, this is not to say that the pain is never worth it. I'm not advocating for nihilism. (Although <a href="http://rustbeltphilosophy.blogspot.com/2015/02/define-nightmare.html" target="_blank">I may, ultimately, be advocating for voluntary extinction</a>, which I guess can be seen as a kind of nihilism? Maybe? Anyway...) All I want is a little intellectual courage, especially from the rationalist side of this particular conversation. Either this one idiot's decision isn't bad enough to poison secularism/atheism outright or it is that bad. In the first case, our cause has nothing to fear from honesty; in the second case, it has nothing legitimate to gain. (Naturally, the same dilemma applies to any idiot and any ideology.) Given those outcomes, is a little honesty really so much to ask?<br /><br />*I kid, I kid - obviously, all of these people were just as nutty beforehand.<br />**For the record, this is about where I stand at the moment. I'm not opposed in principle to the idea of an atheist hate crime, but this doesn't look like one of those yet.Eli Horowitzhttps://plus.google.com/107677687997893275486noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8924756809871054336.post-74542270946111947262015-02-23T06:45:00.000-08:002015-02-23T06:45:11.298-08:00Links!<b>We go together like ramma lamma lamma however that annoying-ass song goes</b><br /><a href="http://aeon.co/magazine/technology/on-the-high-seas-of-the-hidden-internet/" target="_blank">Together forever like markets and violence</a>.<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">"Many libertarians believe that people <i>should </i>be able to buy and sell drugs without government interference, and hoped to build marketplaces to do just that, without violence and gang warfare...To this end, entrepreneurs have found it necessary to create and maintain communities, making rules, enforcing them, punishing rule-breakers, and turning towards violence when all else fails. They have, in effect, built petty versions of the very governments they are fleeing. As the US sociologist Charles Tilly argued, the modern state began as a protection racket, offering its subjects protection against outsiders and each other. The same logic is playing out today on the hidden internet, as would-be petty barons and pirate kings fight to tax and police their subjects while defending themselves against hostile incursions."</blockquote>For all that <a href="http://rustbeltphilosophy.blogspot.com/2014/11/freely-chosen-private-uncoerced.html" target="_blank">the glibertarian community has (hypocritically) embraced stuff like Silk Road</a> and for all their self-proclaimed economic expertise, you might think that they might stop for a moment to learn a thing or two about economic <i>history.</i>&nbsp;Or, I dunno, you might not - after all, if they did <i>that,</i>&nbsp;they'd run into articles like Henry Farrell's, and then they'd maybe have to be realistic for like two consecutive seconds and then, I imagine, they'd have some kind of brain cramp and they'd die.<br /><br /><br /><b>Nice try, asshole</b><br />Quoth sociology professor <a href="http://blogs.ssrc.org/tif/2015/02/17/values-and-violence-thoughts-on-charlie-hebdo/#Juergensmeyer" target="_blank">Mark Juergensmeyer</a>:<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">"When right-wing patriots almost literally wrap themselves in flags as they plot to assassinate the President of the United States—which they have—few people blame nationalism itself. Rather, they look at the mixture of psychological and political motives that may have brought the conspirators to their savage plans. When a whole group or culture adopts a vicious form of extreme nationalism—Nazism comes to mind—again it is not nationalism itself that we blame, but a perverted form of it crafted to buttress the power-hungry designs of a political junta.<br /><br />The role of religion in public violence is like that. For this reason, it is lazy thinking to blame religious beliefs and scriptures without looking at the sociopolitical and historical contexts."</blockquote>Yes, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalism#Criticisms" target="_blank">who ever blames nationalism for anything</a>? <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-nationalism#Notable_anti-nationalists" target="_blank">Don't people always shift the blame to other factors</a>? Nobody ever <a href="http://rustbeltphilosophy.blogspot.com/2014/02/flirting-with-genocide.html" target="_blank">identifies nationalism as a potentially dangerous force</a>. Shit just doesn't happen. Well, or else Juergensmeyer is the sort of sociology professor whose research skills are so poor that he can't even use google. One of those two.<br /><br /><br /><b>Political history ain't dead yet</b><br />For all that Cory Doctorow's fiction is bit on the bland side, he has some neat ideas sometimes. <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jul/24/how-the-kickstarter-model-could-transform-uk-elections" target="_blank">Here's one</a>.<br /><br /><div><br /><b>Y'THINK?!</b></div><div><a href="http://philosopherscocoon.typepad.com/blog/2015/02/how-do-you-teach-students-what-an-argument-is.html" target="_blank">Face, meet palm</a>.<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">"I think that you can get a lot out of a philosophy class without ever really understanding what validity is. You don't really need to be able to condense philosophical prose into numbered premises in order to think about whether you might be a brain in a vat. At the same time, though, I can't shake the feeling that if I don't at least give my 101 students the opportunity to learn the basic principles of philosophical argument, I'm not doing my job."</blockquote>Okay, what the serious fuck. <i>Of course you have to teach "the basic principles of philosophical argument" as part of an introduction to philosophy!</i>&nbsp;Why is this even open to discussion? In what sick, twisted world does it make <i>any</i>&nbsp;sense to just throw ideas at people and then defend the resulting chaotic incompetence by reasoning that they'll "get a lot out of" it, as if an intro course is an activity on a cruise ship or some shit? And how would this work out in other areas, I wonder? "Well, let's just let these kids add however they like. They might not all figure out how to do arithmetic, but they'll have so much fun!" Or: "No, I'm not going to <i>teach</i>&nbsp;you how to dribble a basketball or even what it means to "dribble" a basketball, you have to just start playing and figure it out on your own." Or: "The tradition in culinary school is to teach certain techniques for making food, but at this school we feel that everybody can enjoy the cooking experience even without knowing how to 'chop' or 'saute' things." For shit's sake, a philosophy class isn't a tourist experience. It's not just a book club for people who enjoy reading texts that are gratuitously opaque. You're there to learn&nbsp;how to be a philosopher, starting, yes, <i>with the motherfucking basics,</i>&nbsp;and if you can't do that then the teacher should fucking fail you so as to prevent you from eventually becoming the sort of well-credentialed shit-for-brains who doesn't even think that it's important to teach the fundamentals of an activity.<br /><br />I swear on all that is good in the world, there is <i>nothing</i>&nbsp;so obvious that some professional philosopher can't manage to disbelieve it...<br /><br /></div><div><br /><b>Princeton, whyyyyyyyyyyyy</b></div><div>This summer, Princeton's campus will evidently be used to house <a href="http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2015/02/summer-seminars-at-the-witherspoon-institute" target="_blank">the following seminars</a>:<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">"Moral Life and the Classical Tradition: for rising high school juniors and seniors, with readings in Plato and Aristotle, and discussion of contemporary moral issues from a Judeo-Christian perspective...<br /><br />Medical Ethics: A Natural Law Perspective...<br /><br />Natural Law and Public Affairs...<br /><br />First Principles: Natural Law and the Theologico-Political Question: for advanced undergraduate and graduate students, covering readings by Thomas Aquinas, Thomas More, Eric Voegelin, and Pierre Manent, plus documents of the Vatican on p0litical [sic, believe it or not] life, and texts of the American founding...<br /><br />Thomistic Seminar: Aquinas and Contemporary Ethics..."</blockquote>In a more ideally rational world, the administrators at a place like Princeton would sneer at that kind of dreck. In the real world, however, we waste our time on this bullshit because religions - even the more peaceful, less stridently evangelical, more progressive religions - <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princeton_University" target="_blank">can't be trusted</a>.<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">"Princeton had close ties to the Presbyterian Church, but has never been affiliated with any denomination and today imposes no religious requirements on its students."</blockquote>This is about as weak a religious influence as you can get, and yet even it (combined with the prestige that's still wrongly accorded to religions) is enough to generate a pass for the seminars above, which quite clearly offer little more than religious indoctrination dressed up in more respectable clothing. Maybe, then, what we need isn't just to "impose[] no religious requirements on...students." Maybe what we need is an explicitly secular higher education system. Given what's going to happen at Princeton this summer, it couldn't hurt.</div>Eli Horowitzhttps://plus.google.com/107677687997893275486noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8924756809871054336.post-21707152541471039202015-02-20T11:56:00.002-08:002015-02-20T11:56:48.311-08:00What it looks like: winter, substantively and merely technically<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">It will perhaps not be surprising that, when I went on that little break last week, I did so from a warm location. These days, Pittsburgh is not such a place.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-0etKR34KcNc/VOKnKDCXJSI/AAAAAAAAFsA/Pf1tilD7Yg0/s1600/IMG_7249.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-0etKR34KcNc/VOKnKDCXJSI/AAAAAAAAFsA/Pf1tilD7Yg0/s1600/IMG_7249.JPG" height="640" width="480" /></a></div><br />Things here are so bad, in fact, that our rivers have frozen over. Not, y'know, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/River_Thames_frost_fairs" target="_blank">frost-fair</a>-level frozen over, but it still has to be pretty damn cold in order for that to happen.<br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-W-wn2xcYz5A/VOKnRm6a_EI/AAAAAAAAFsI/AjD7Gx3_VZE/s1600/IMG_7233.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-W-wn2xcYz5A/VOKnRm6a_EI/AAAAAAAAFsI/AjD7Gx3_VZE/s1600/IMG_7233.JPG" height="480" width="640" /></a></div><br />Indeed, small piece of graffiti: whoa! As in, "Whoa! It is extraordinarily cold here!"<br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-D0xCwdB6GmQ/VOKnWx-y_SI/AAAAAAAAFsQ/SpSj0KEfEBo/s1600/IMG_7242.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-D0xCwdB6GmQ/VOKnWx-y_SI/AAAAAAAAFsQ/SpSj0KEfEBo/s1600/IMG_7242.JPG" height="640" width="480" /></a></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-UaEMxA0VpSs/VOKnGNR2LCI/AAAAAAAAFr4/Gxi8zXCWbqg/s1600/IMG_7236.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-UaEMxA0VpSs/VOKnGNR2LCI/AAAAAAAAFr4/Gxi8zXCWbqg/s1600/IMG_7236.JPG" height="480" width="640" /></a></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-stupH_hsHZk/VOKnfO830xI/AAAAAAAAFvk/8nHwVV9s1XA/s1600/IMG_7246.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-stupH_hsHZk/VOKnfO830xI/AAAAAAAAFvk/8nHwVV9s1XA/s1600/IMG_7246.JPG" height="640" width="372" /></a></div><br />Usually I'm pretty resistant to low temperatures. When the condensation from my breath starts freezing on my facial hair, though, that's about the time when I start to get irritated.<br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-PoqiQYrD5GY/VOKnor9xhNI/AAAAAAAAFsg/gePG0lh2b34/s1600/IMG_7252.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-PoqiQYrD5GY/VOKnor9xhNI/AAAAAAAAFsg/gePG0lh2b34/s1600/IMG_7252.JPG" height="480" width="640" /></a></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ihP0fZpGQJE/VOKntSjHKoI/AAAAAAAAFv0/GcVvw79tptE/s1600/IMG_7263.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ihP0fZpGQJE/VOKntSjHKoI/AAAAAAAAFv0/GcVvw79tptE/s1600/IMG_7263.JPG" height="640" width="480" /></a></div><br />Oh, and also I guess some tagger out there eats people? Or something?<br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-R3uVQItt2BA/VOLFJTQxAeI/AAAAAAAAF00/9cqBbUQj4cg/s1600/IMG_7251.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-R3uVQItt2BA/VOLFJTQxAeI/AAAAAAAAF00/9cqBbUQj4cg/s1600/IMG_7251.JPG" height="480" width="640" /></a></div><br />I dunno. Your guess is as good as mine.<br /><br />At any rate, I ended up going to Florida, not because I like the place but because I have family there - and, yes, because "winter" in Florida means low temperatures in the mid-60s. It was quite nice.<br /><br />Our first stop was the <a href="http://morikami.org/" target="_blank">Morakami Museum and Japanese Gardens</a>, which I thought were quite lovely.<br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-8eGBNxYV1rQ/VOKodHUxQzI/AAAAAAAAFs4/jjp5AclfvpU/s1600/IMG_7301.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-8eGBNxYV1rQ/VOKodHUxQzI/AAAAAAAAFs4/jjp5AclfvpU/s1600/IMG_7301.JPG" height="640" width="480" /></a></div><br />They've done a very nice job of designing the area so that you experience a variety of landscapes: sunny ones, shady ones, flat ones, (very slightly) hilly ones, dry ones, ones that feature water, and so on.<br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-fgLpw-6tGTY/VOKop4U7D0I/AAAAAAAAFtA/G5wlwfyKvwE/s1600/IMG_7307.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-fgLpw-6tGTY/VOKop4U7D0I/AAAAAAAAFtA/G5wlwfyKvwE/s1600/IMG_7307.JPG" height="640" width="358" /></a></div><br />They also have some neat wildlife, although not as much as one of the other places we ended up visiting.<br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-tWl0i6kyWe8/VOKoPLDQpYI/AAAAAAAAFsw/MLHVNdSv_PY/s1600/IMG_7295.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-tWl0i6kyWe8/VOKoPLDQpYI/AAAAAAAAFsw/MLHVNdSv_PY/s1600/IMG_7295.JPG" height="640" width="480" /></a></div><br />And they have a <a href="http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheThingThatGoesDoink" target="_blank">thing that goes "doink"</a>!<br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-3yg9ZeU1Yj8/VOKou_DmqcI/AAAAAAAAFtI/oY1X60tUGdk/s1600/IMG_7337.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-3yg9ZeU1Yj8/VOKou_DmqcI/AAAAAAAAFtI/oY1X60tUGdk/s1600/IMG_7337.JPG" height="480" width="640" /></a></div><br />Things that go "doink" are awesome!<br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-WQCY_ksthao/VOKo5DMY9vI/AAAAAAAAFtQ/ArKwP_8tA7o/s1600/IMG_7340.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-WQCY_ksthao/VOKo5DMY9vI/AAAAAAAAFtQ/ArKwP_8tA7o/s1600/IMG_7340.JPG" height="358" width="640" /></a></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-LRD_q40V9k8/VOKpEH5oacI/AAAAAAAAFtY/sv_kdO-aSWw/s1600/IMG_7362.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-LRD_q40V9k8/VOKpEH5oacI/AAAAAAAAFtY/sv_kdO-aSWw/s1600/IMG_7362.JPG" height="358" width="640" /></a></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-LCcIogYdN0o/VOK12zcNUKI/AAAAAAAAFwY/h--61bQsL38/s1600/IMG_7290.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-LCcIogYdN0o/VOK12zcNUKI/AAAAAAAAFwY/h--61bQsL38/s1600/IMG_7290.JPG" height="358" width="640" /></a></div><br />I should mention that these pictures only show the gardens. The museum (which is kinda fun but not mind-blowing) doesn't allow photography.<br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-f9mWccP0tEs/VOK16K-71AI/AAAAAAAAFwg/apSMaJqM_Ko/s1600/IMG_7291.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-f9mWccP0tEs/VOK16K-71AI/AAAAAAAAFwg/apSMaJqM_Ko/s1600/IMG_7291.JPG" height="358" width="640" /></a></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-bp4IkUAFG0U/VOK2ZBYSDhI/AAAAAAAAFw4/_tPDbrM7_5k/s1600/IMG_7296.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-bp4IkUAFG0U/VOK2ZBYSDhI/AAAAAAAAFw4/_tPDbrM7_5k/s1600/IMG_7296.JPG" height="640" width="480" /></a></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-rwEkTO12d8k/VOK2VYJrcwI/AAAAAAAAFww/MgKsY2CglwA/s1600/IMG_7298.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-rwEkTO12d8k/VOK2VYJrcwI/AAAAAAAAFww/MgKsY2CglwA/s1600/IMG_7298.JPG" height="358" width="640" /></a></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-EpMQsvmyOME/VOK2tyeLjvI/AAAAAAAAFzE/6kJSvSQ7TwU/s1600/IMG_7312.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-EpMQsvmyOME/VOK2tyeLjvI/AAAAAAAAFzE/6kJSvSQ7TwU/s1600/IMG_7312.JPG" height="416" width="640" /></a></div><br />The bamboo copse (seen partially above, behind the gate) was aurally surprising. I knew that bamboo bent in a breeze, but I didn't know that it sounded like someone opening and closing doors. Pretty cool.<br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-kw8gzfaZvfI/VOK2_ATcEMI/AAAAAAAAFxQ/1_Xk8Rg9eY8/s1600/IMG_7320.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-kw8gzfaZvfI/VOK2_ATcEMI/AAAAAAAAFxQ/1_Xk8Rg9eY8/s1600/IMG_7320.JPG" height="358" width="640" /></a></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-bpufXlg_Qro/VOK3XhRJNiI/AAAAAAAAFxo/zDO3nl-FKy8/s1600/IMG_7322.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-bpufXlg_Qro/VOK3XhRJNiI/AAAAAAAAFxo/zDO3nl-FKy8/s1600/IMG_7322.JPG" height="640" width="480" /></a></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-r_Pqwru2uhg/VOK3NJO7ZCI/AAAAAAAAFxY/g4ppIwOSKD4/s1600/IMG_7327.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-r_Pqwru2uhg/VOK3NJO7ZCI/AAAAAAAAFxY/g4ppIwOSKD4/s1600/IMG_7327.JPG" height="640" width="480" /></a></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/--CKJ5zdZGgY/VOK3SIEMlOI/AAAAAAAAFxg/5dwoUBltPV4/s1600/IMG_7330.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/--CKJ5zdZGgY/VOK3SIEMlOI/AAAAAAAAFxg/5dwoUBltPV4/s1600/IMG_7330.JPG" height="480" width="640" /></a></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-TNz1t47zzg0/VOK3eHL7w_I/AAAAAAAAFxw/WmowOyhcdk0/s1600/IMG_7352.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-TNz1t47zzg0/VOK3eHL7w_I/AAAAAAAAFxw/WmowOyhcdk0/s1600/IMG_7352.JPG" height="640" width="480" /></a></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-w32jvDBHRY8/VOK4O-M2xYI/AAAAAAAAFyI/nHE1-XRHeCY/s1600/IMG_7375.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-w32jvDBHRY8/VOK4O-M2xYI/AAAAAAAAFyI/nHE1-XRHeCY/s1600/IMG_7375.JPG" height="480" width="640" /></a></div><br />The one thing that the gardens lacked was prominent floral life. If you're the sort of person who doesn't care much for trees and bushes and who strongly prefers flowers, you'll be mostly out of luck. Basically, this is the kind of thing you'll get:<br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-1mdoDppPzEc/VOK4NJUogKI/AAAAAAAAFyA/nlbP8mR3oCs/s1600/IMG_7377.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-1mdoDppPzEc/VOK4NJUogKI/AAAAAAAAFyA/nlbP8mR3oCs/s1600/IMG_7377.JPG" height="480" width="640" /></a></div><br />Still, the place is well worth visiting if, for some unfortunate reason, you ever find yourself in southeast Florida.<br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-HsGevgMecww/VOK4Ug8jPVI/AAAAAAAAFzM/8r1f4hFaJOM/s1600/IMG_7385.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-HsGevgMecww/VOK4Ug8jPVI/AAAAAAAAFzM/8r1f4hFaJOM/s1600/IMG_7385.JPG" height="640" width="468" /></a></div><br />I mean, shit - these days it sure beats going to a Heat game.<br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Xv8FKafzaWM/VOK4kio3iyI/AAAAAAAAFyg/XvDXOGAcpKE/s1600/IMG_7387.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Xv8FKafzaWM/VOK4kio3iyI/AAAAAAAAFyg/XvDXOGAcpKE/s1600/IMG_7387.JPG" height="480" width="640" /></a></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-4Y8qhOfOYzU/VOK4ieBneDI/AAAAAAAAFyY/FG_pPndAQRs/s1600/IMG_7390.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-4Y8qhOfOYzU/VOK4ieBneDI/AAAAAAAAFyY/FG_pPndAQRs/s1600/IMG_7390.JPG" height="480" width="640" /></a></div><br />There's also a waterfall, but the waterfall belongs in the same category as the flowers: if that's the main reason you want to go, don't go.<br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-OAGnvdyKZw0/VOK4ypz4UaI/AAAAAAAAFyo/4FbVVO0EjNY/s1600/IMG_7399.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-OAGnvdyKZw0/VOK4ypz4UaI/AAAAAAAAFyo/4FbVVO0EjNY/s1600/IMG_7399.JPG" height="480" width="640" /></a></div><br />It's not a <i>bad</i>&nbsp;waterfall. It's just not a <i>remarkable</i>&nbsp;waterfall, is all. Although why you'd expect to find a remarkable waterfall in a state as flat as Florida, I have no idea.<br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-gGgtvbLdXhg/VOK40w3zuUI/AAAAAAAAFyw/w9A46qsRVdI/s1600/IMG_7403.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-gGgtvbLdXhg/VOK40w3zuUI/AAAAAAAAFyw/w9A46qsRVdI/s1600/IMG_7403.JPG" height="480" width="640" /></a></div><br />So yeah - that's the Morakami. It's no Frick park or anything, but it's at least twenty-eight billion times better than the majority of stuff you'll find in Florida.<br /><br />Our activity for the next day consisted of a visit to Delray Beach, both as in the beach itself and the town of the same name.<br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-k5irKKTrz1Q/VOKpxbNAz9I/AAAAAAAAFwE/R9ZvJ5My3KQ/s1600/IMG_7419.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-k5irKKTrz1Q/VOKpxbNAz9I/AAAAAAAAFwE/R9ZvJ5My3KQ/s1600/IMG_7419.JPG" height="508" width="640" /></a></div><br />This sign didn't seem to enjoy the place much:<br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-ZkqLL_JoQGA/VOKpi0DdNBI/AAAAAAAAFtg/9B9VF5QG_yc/s1600/IMG_7411.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-ZkqLL_JoQGA/VOKpi0DdNBI/AAAAAAAAFtg/9B9VF5QG_yc/s1600/IMG_7411.JPG" height="480" width="640" /></a></div><br />Nonetheless, it was nice, as beaches go. I still haven't found a beach that makes me feel like I'm in a James Bond movie or anything, but I haven't found anything&nbsp;<i>else</i>&nbsp;that makes me feel like I'm in a James Bond movie, either, so, y'know, whatever.<br /><br />The town itself, on the other hand, you could skip.<br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-t8MVLYR6gkM/VOKp7H-Eq0I/AAAAAAAAFuA/2827XF43qBQ/s1600/IMG_7423.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-t8MVLYR6gkM/VOKp7H-Eq0I/AAAAAAAAFuA/2827XF43qBQ/s1600/IMG_7423.JPG" height="480" width="640" /></a></div><br />It's full of places like this:<br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-zFXkHyq1YOE/VOKp011z1mI/AAAAAAAAFt4/xPi-IJwbXDc/s1600/IMG_7421.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-zFXkHyq1YOE/VOKp011z1mI/AAAAAAAAFt4/xPi-IJwbXDc/s1600/IMG_7421.JPG" height="480" width="640" /></a></div><br />Get it? "Artsy" living? Only with "art" and "sea"?<br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-qmBURd7Aseg/VOKpyw1BvsI/AAAAAAAAFtw/-RwE9RA_ig0/s1600/IMG_7420.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-qmBURd7Aseg/VOKpyw1BvsI/AAAAAAAAFtw/-RwE9RA_ig0/s1600/IMG_7420.JPG" height="480" width="640" /></a></div><br />Get it? It's like "rags to riches," only it's a store for dog stuff, so it's "wags" instead. (And I guess the proprietors can't spell? Or something?)<br /><br />Look, people, I like puns. Ask anybody who knows me and they'll tell you: I make puns way more often than is actually justified. But even I have my limits. Encountering this "wags to riches"-type shit feels like undergoing a very weird sort of necrosis, wherein my insides shrivel up and turn to dust and I lose my will to live. Plus, these stores never sell anything that I couldn't find at home for less money. Please fuck off and die, overpriced, shitty, poorly-named boutique stores of the world.<br /><br />Ahem.<br /><br />At any rate, the final attraction we visited was the Wakodahatchee wetlands, which is just one more place that we named using the language of the people who might still be calling it that if we hadn't shown up and near-genocided them.<br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-IravOHAOJog/VOKrNln7U9I/AAAAAAAAFvI/MpLnWdFXjjM/s1600/IMG_7530.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-IravOHAOJog/VOKrNln7U9I/AAAAAAAAFvI/MpLnWdFXjjM/s1600/IMG_7530.JPG" height="480" width="640" /></a></div><br />But hey - we saw an alligator!<br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-pqJ3LWKEJRw/VOKqCGXS55I/AAAAAAAAFuI/IudRDbvq_v8/s1600/IMG_7431.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-pqJ3LWKEJRw/VOKqCGXS55I/AAAAAAAAFuI/IudRDbvq_v8/s1600/IMG_7431.JPG" height="480" width="640" /></a></div><br />Yay!<br /><br />Actually, though, the wetlands were more suited to birdwatchers than to any other kind of naturalist.<br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Fyoz5e8cMLc/VOKqIY7OkHI/AAAAAAAAFuQ/nwqMpMTpXVY/s1600/IMG_7447.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Fyoz5e8cMLc/VOKqIY7OkHI/AAAAAAAAFuQ/nwqMpMTpXVY/s1600/IMG_7447.JPG" height="358" width="640" /></a></div><br />There'll be a lot more birds later. In the meantime, I love me some signs that label the thing around them:<br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Cia1_hfVFEY/VOKqhg-LPZI/AAAAAAAAFuY/nJNZhHVR_VY/s1600/IMG_7494.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Cia1_hfVFEY/VOKqhg-LPZI/AAAAAAAAFuY/nJNZhHVR_VY/s1600/IMG_7494.JPG" height="358" width="640" /></a></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-zGHZujxzplA/VOKq2THzP0I/AAAAAAAAFug/x5FZNgt-WI4/s1600/IMG_7504.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-zGHZujxzplA/VOKq2THzP0I/AAAAAAAAFug/x5FZNgt-WI4/s1600/IMG_7504.JPG" height="358" width="640" /></a></div><br />Honestly, I can't explain why I love that shit so much. I can't bring myself <i>not</i>&nbsp;to take these pictures, I swear. Hopefully you all enjoy them, because they're not gonna stop showing up.<br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-DKzovu5rUDE/VOKq9R2TF2I/AAAAAAAAFuw/NBJRzoxgwwI/s1600/IMG_7512.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-DKzovu5rUDE/VOKq9R2TF2I/AAAAAAAAFuw/NBJRzoxgwwI/s1600/IMG_7512.JPG" height="480" width="640" /></a></div><br />Ah, here's another bird, finally:<br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-ZawC_WTsrNY/VOKq9Y9uBMI/AAAAAAAAFus/o_Ni2fIgjh8/s1600/IMG_7516.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-ZawC_WTsrNY/VOKq9Y9uBMI/AAAAAAAAFus/o_Ni2fIgjh8/s1600/IMG_7516.JPG" height="480" width="640" /></a></div><br />Check out that neck! I somehow have a hard time believing that that's comfortable.<br /><br />We also got to witness some birds feeding one another:<br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-CyutpEx0MK8/VOK8yo4lSqI/AAAAAAAAFzU/6Oo_1j8hY9A/s1600/IMG_7469.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-CyutpEx0MK8/VOK8yo4lSqI/AAAAAAAAFzU/6Oo_1j8hY9A/s1600/IMG_7469.JPG" height="358" width="640" /></a></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-wdFEh4EJoo0/VOK85QMa4XI/AAAAAAAAFzk/b8Pg-YbzeCc/s1600/IMG_7477.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-wdFEh4EJoo0/VOK85QMa4XI/AAAAAAAAFzk/b8Pg-YbzeCc/s1600/IMG_7477.JPG" height="358" width="640" /></a></div><br />I knew going in that many birds do the whole predigestion thing, but it was a bit arresting to see just how far the baby bird has to reach into its parent's mouth. It's <i>really</i>&nbsp;in there, and it was there for, I dunno, 45 seconds or a minute straight. Nature is weird.<br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-0Pv6BnoKftA/VOK842ZxgLI/AAAAAAAAFzg/O-ZkGIrMPWA/s1600/IMG_7481.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-0Pv6BnoKftA/VOK842ZxgLI/AAAAAAAAFzg/O-ZkGIrMPWA/s1600/IMG_7481.JPG" height="358" width="640" /></a></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-0aBOH0ltV0M/VOK9BMJKCnI/AAAAAAAAFzs/ZdV-2Mvqvh8/s1600/IMG_7484.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-0aBOH0ltV0M/VOK9BMJKCnI/AAAAAAAAFzs/ZdV-2Mvqvh8/s1600/IMG_7484.JPG" height="358" width="640" /></a></div><br />Notice the houses in the background:<br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-8bEMHJ56J-A/VOK9OvmDkQI/AAAAAAAAFz0/z4I5ITzSnyI/s1600/IMG_7499.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-8bEMHJ56J-A/VOK9OvmDkQI/AAAAAAAAFz0/z4I5ITzSnyI/s1600/IMG_7499.JPG" height="640" width="480" /></a></div><br />That'd make for a pretty sweet view, although, as one person in our party observed, it might not be so sweet when an alligator ambles onto your lawn.<br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-sXm5OBb-O4o/VOK9enT4YXI/AAAAAAAAFz8/UTtLIGrGaxA/s1600/IMG_7505.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-sXm5OBb-O4o/VOK9enT4YXI/AAAAAAAAFz8/UTtLIGrGaxA/s1600/IMG_7505.JPG" height="358" width="640" /></a></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-QMb_92d9Qgw/VOK928ko8lI/AAAAAAAAF0M/BVoPmTpp3rM/s1600/IMG_7522.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-QMb_92d9Qgw/VOK928ko8lI/AAAAAAAAF0M/BVoPmTpp3rM/s1600/IMG_7522.JPG" height="358" width="640" /></a></div><br />Oh, and there was an iguana:<br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-dIF8_GvwEJ0/VOK9mHpWspI/AAAAAAAAF0E/sjJNS_eW_xg/s1600/IMG_7509.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-dIF8_GvwEJ0/VOK9mHpWspI/AAAAAAAAF0E/sjJNS_eW_xg/s1600/IMG_7509.JPG" height="480" width="640" /></a></div><br />In the immortal words of Weird Al, I could tell you a story about the iguana, but...ehhhh...I don't wanna.<br /><br />And then there were more birds:<br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-LSXYETsjOEA/VOK98b0pRFI/AAAAAAAAF0Y/o8zEeQVZTjw/s1600/IMG_7519.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-LSXYETsjOEA/VOK98b0pRFI/AAAAAAAAF0Y/o8zEeQVZTjw/s1600/IMG_7519.JPG" height="358" width="640" /></a></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-RVn3DbRX1os/VOK98t65-oI/AAAAAAAAF0c/CnbmgT-nYDk/s1600/IMG_7527.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-RVn3DbRX1os/VOK98t65-oI/AAAAAAAAF0c/CnbmgT-nYDk/s1600/IMG_7527.JPG" height="640" width="480" /></a></div><br />Yay birds, I suppose.<br /><br />And that, dear readers, was pretty much that. Aside from a puzzling encounter with the Panthers team jet on our brief layover in Charlotte...<br /><br /><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-dCHCu4qL9CA/VOKrRW6AepI/AAAAAAAAFvQ/gWV1YNloiew/s1600/IMG_7537.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-dCHCu4qL9CA/VOKrRW6AepI/AAAAAAAAFvQ/gWV1YNloiew/s1600/IMG_7537.JPG" height="480" width="640" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Psst! Panthers execs! You should really ditch Cam Newton. He isn't that good.</td></tr></tbody></table>...that was the extent of our photographable trip. Next up in the photo series, I believe, will be the pictures from my honeymoon, if you can believe that. But we won't be getting to that for some months yet, so hopefully these were enough to tide you over.<br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-OADILh12Ao4/VOKrJDBTuFI/AAAAAAAAFu4/XXy3TpuZrCM/s1600/IMG_7531.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-OADILh12Ao4/VOKrJDBTuFI/AAAAAAAAFu4/XXy3TpuZrCM/s1600/IMG_7531.JPG" height="480" width="640" /></a></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-rQiBBmOWxNg/VOKrKmybvCI/AAAAAAAAFwM/Qjh7iZK9qwM/s1600/IMG_7534.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-rQiBBmOWxNg/VOKrKmybvCI/AAAAAAAAFwM/Qjh7iZK9qwM/s1600/IMG_7534.JPG" height="640" width="596" /></a></div>Eli Horowitzhttps://plus.google.com/107677687997893275486noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8924756809871054336.post-25249763361673958222015-02-20T07:28:00.002-08:002015-02-20T07:28:48.254-08:00Weekly webcomic: reflection<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://moonbeard.com/comics/2015-02-12-cage.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://moonbeard.com/comics/2015-02-12-cage.jpg" height="640" width="561" /></a></div><br />Eli Horowitzhttps://plus.google.com/107677687997893275486noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8924756809871054336.post-23139423486087983772015-02-19T11:37:00.001-08:002015-02-19T11:42:09.960-08:00Define "nightmare"Or, "<a href="http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/01/17/links-12014-link-for-you-know-not-whence-you-came-nor-why/" target="_blank">What - me worry?</a>"<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">"Scientists <a href="http://www.vocativ.com/culture/science/most-powerful-poker-computer-cepheus/">develop computer program that can always win at poker</a>. I was originally confused why they published this result instead of heading to online casinos and becoming rich enough to buy small countries, but it seems that it's a very simplified version of the game with only two players. More interesting, the strategy was reinforcement learning – the computer started with minimal domain knowledge, then played poker against itself a zillion times until it learned everything it needed to know. Everyone who thinks that AI is nothing to worry about, please think very carefully about the implications of a stupid non-generalized algorithm being able to auto-solve a game typically considered a supreme test of strategy and intellect."</blockquote>Although I'm not entirely sure who considers poker to be "a supreme test of strategy and intellect," I <i>am</i>&nbsp;a person "who thinks that AI is nothing to worry about." And, in fact, Scott Alexander's posts on the subject tend to make me worry about it&nbsp;<i>less,</i>&nbsp;so, if you'll allow me, I'm going to substitute his (surely) very careful thinking for my own and see where it leads.<br /><br />Alexander doesn't specify any worrisome outcomes in the post I've just quoted. <a href="http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/08/01/misperceptions-on-moloch/" target="_blank">Elsewhere</a>, however, he says the following:<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">"Whatever your values are, the world being eaten by gray goo, paperclip maximizers, or Hansonian ems is unlikely to satisfy them. I think there's room for a broad alliance among people of all value systems against this possibility."</blockquote>And, similarly, in <a href="http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/" target="_blank">a third post</a> he refers to the<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">"nightmare of a superintelligence optimizing for some random thing (classically paper clips) because we weren't smart enough to channel its optimization efforts the right way. This is the ultimate trap, the trap that catches the universe. Everything except the one thing being maximized is destroyed utterly in pursuit of the single goal, including all the silly human values."</blockquote>(As an entertaining/disconcerting side note, take a moment to remember that the human species has, to this point in history, essentially acted as a human-body-maximization machine. That is, <a href="http://rustbeltphilosophy.blogspot.com/2015/01/domestic-terraforming-and-ends-of.html" target="_blank">over the course of our history, we've done our damnedest to find the most efficient ways of transforming all the matter around us into as many human bodies as we can manage to create</a>. Human bodies and paperclips are very different things, granted, and we've been far less effective than Alexander's hypothetical world-eater AI would be. Still, though, while we're adding things to the list, there's another subject for all of you to think very carefully about.)<br /><br />For my part, though, I can't say that either of those scenarios bothers me very much. The "broad alliance" in favor of human existence means very little to me, given that that alliance is mostly composed of people who haven't thought very carefully about the issue. Nor am I much bothered by the possibility that my "values" won't be "satisf[ied]": they aren't being satisfied right now, either, and I'm beginning to suspect that they'd actually come closer to being satisfied if humanity went extinct. It doesn't even bother me to think that "human values" might disappear from the universe. After all, the values themselves aren't valuable. They only tell us (or try to tell us) what <i>is</i>&nbsp;valuable. As Alexander himself says:<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">"A person or society following preference utilitarianism will try to satisfy the wants and values of as many people as possible as completely as possible; thus the phrase 'the greatest good for the greatest number'."</blockquote>Nobody has to <i>believe in</i>&nbsp;preference utilitarianism for this to happen (at least, in theory); nobody has to <i>value</i>&nbsp;human happiness (again, in theory). So long as the greatest good for the greatest number is achieved, it doesn't matter <i>what</i>&nbsp;people think - or, crucially, <i>if </i>people think.<br /><br />If that seems confusing, don't worry - I'll explain. In order to understand what it means to achieve the greatest good for the greatest number, we first have to identify not just the greatest good but, more specifically, the greatest <i>obtainable</i>&nbsp;good. We might be able to <i>imagine</i> a more awesome future than the future(s) that we can actually achieve, but if the ontological argument has taught us anything it's that something doesn't exist just because we can imagine it. And, if we're going to try to be realistic in our projections of the future, it helps to start with reality in the present. Which, unfortunately, is where the trouble begins.<br /><br />Alexander, for one thing, does essentially nothing to measure the preference-utilitarian state of affairs that currently exists.* In particular, he seems to be beholden to the same bias that Maria Popova expresses <a href="http://www.brainpickings.org/2015/02/09/hope-cynicism/" target="_blank">here</a>:<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">"Finding fault and feeling hopeless about improving the situation produces resignation — cynicism is both resignation's symptom and a futile self-protection mechanism against it. Blindly believing that everything will work out just fine also produces resignation, for we have no motive to apply ourselves toward making things better. But in order to survive — both as individuals and as a civilization — and especially in order to thrive, we need the right balance of critical thinking and hope...<br /><br />What we need, then, are writers like William Faulkner, who came of age in a brothel, saw humanity at its most depraved, and yet managed to maintain his faith in the human spirit...Yes, people sometimes do horrible things, and we can speculate about why they do them until we run out of words and sanity. But evil only prevails when we mistake it for the norm. There is so much goodness in the world — all we have to do is remind one another of it, show up for it, and refuse to leave."</blockquote>Like Popova, Alexander never consciously calculates the moral value of <i>non</i>existence - of, in other words, <i>not</i>&nbsp;surviving (either as individuals or as civilizations),&nbsp;<i>not</i>&nbsp;axiomatically having "faith in the human spirit," and <i>not</i>&nbsp;"show[ing] up" (or, having shown up, not "refus[ing] to leave"). Instead, he seems to take it as a given that human nonexistence is a "nightmar[ish]" idea (or, at least, one "to worry about"), despite the fact that, when you think about it for more than a few seconds, it's incredibly easy to conclude that the utilitarian value of nonexistence is zero. (No preferences are satisfied = 0. No preferences go unsatisfied = 0. 0+0 = 0. Same goes for other flavors of utilitarianism.) For Alexander, however, the nightmarish badness of human extinction isn't derived by careful thought or calculation; rather, it's the mirror image of his tacit assumption that human existence is a tremendous moral good. For him, as is the case for Popova, "the right balance of critical thinking and hope" (i.e., of assigning positive and negative values to reality) is simply defined so that human existence is justified and even necessary. Yet, to put it lightly, that's <i>really</i>&nbsp;not the sort of thing that a utilitarian can just assume.<br /><br />Of course, most people do want humanity to exist, so Alexander's preference-based flavor of utilitarianism does have to take that desire into account. Nevertheless, that desire is no fundamentally different than any other desire - say, my desire to eat lunch. As such, Alexander can't accord any more weight to the desire for human existence than he accords to any other desire.** Alternatively, he could say that he values human existence because it's the prerequisite for the satisfaction of <i>any</i>&nbsp;human*** desires. That road, however, leads to a very dangerous place for Alexander, because human existence is <i>also</i>&nbsp;the prerequisite for the <i>dis</i>satisfaction (as it were) of any human desire. Thus, in order to make the prerequisite argument, Alexander would already have to know that humans are better off existing than not - which, of course, is the one thing that he doesn't want to do.<br /><br />Worse yet, it's not clear that anybody <i>can</i>&nbsp;know that humans are better off existing than not. And I'm not alluding to some piddling epistemological problem, either: I'm saying that, for all we know now, humans <i>aren't</i>&nbsp;better off existing. In particular, there's a very real possibility that it'd be better for humans (and, perhaps, other animals) <i>not</i>&nbsp;to exist. This <a href="http://rustbeltphilosophy.blogspot.com/2010/06/projection-bias-much.html" target="_blank">idea</a> has <a href="http://rustbeltphilosophy.blogspot.com/2015/01/starting-with-two-plus-two-but-stopping.html" target="_blank">surfaced</a> at <a href="http://rustbeltphilosophy.blogspot.com/2010/04/i-paid-my-money-and-im-gonna-see-all.html" target="_blank">numerous points</a> in the <a href="http://rustbeltphilosophy.blogspot.com/2010/05/promise-fulfilled.html" target="_blank">history</a> of this <a href="http://rustbeltphilosophy.blogspot.com/2012/04/so-this-took-me-slightly-longer-than-id.html" target="_blank">blog</a>, sometimes <a href="http://rustbeltphilosophy.blogspot.com/2009/07/on-right-to-avoid-life-movement.html" target="_blank">more prominently</a> and sometimes <a href="http://rustbeltphilosophy.blogspot.com/2010/07/sherlock-holmes-fail.html" target="_blank">less so</a>;&nbsp;and even though it's not 100% clear that nonexistence is best, that's an idea that at least deserves to be taken seriously. If nothing else, the process of doing the math might make Alexander a bit more leery about his vision for the long arc of human history:<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">"I predict that human values, lifted to heaven by a human-friendly superintelligence, would end up looking something like the Archipelago – many places for people to pursue their own visions of the Good, watched over by a benevolent god who acts only to ensure universal freedom of movement. Indeed, given a superintelligence to magic away the problems – no inter-community invasion, no competition for (presumably unlimited) resources – it seems to that a plurality of humankind would endorse this scenario over whatever other plans someone could dream up.<br /><br />It is a minor sin to speculate on what could happen after the Singularity. I’m not saying it will be a world like this. This is something I thought up in ten minutes. It is a lower bound. Something thought up by a real superintelligence would be much, <i>much </i>better."</blockquote>There are more holes in this type of reasoning than I care to explain right now. But, even setting aside all <a href="http://rustbeltphilosophy.blogspot.com/2012/12/post-scarcityeconomicsheaventheology.html" target="_blank">questions of practical feasibility and internal coherence</a>, one problem should still be obvious: Alexander hasn't calculated the cost of getting from here to there.<br /><br />Remember, he is (or claims to be) a utilitarian. That means that he's concerned not with abstractions (such as virtue, rights, or whatever) but with consequences. So it isn't sufficient for him to postulate an endpoint which "a plurality of humankind would endorse"**** - he also has to consider the realistic consequences of <i>reaching</i>&nbsp;that endpoint. In other words, he has to calculate the moral value of the whole arc, <i>not</i>&nbsp;just the moral value of its last phase.<br /><br />This, too, is a theme that has come up every now and then, sometimes <a href="http://rustbeltphilosophy.blogspot.com/2011/10/importance-of-being-earnest-part-1-of-2.html" target="_blank">less prominently</a> and sometimes <a href="http://rustbeltphilosophy.blogspot.com/2013/01/stakes-and-long-arc.html" target="_blank">more so</a>, and it may be something that I need to start developing with a little more urgency. In fact, I've even said at one point that "<a href="http://rustbeltphilosophy.blogspot.com/2013/01/just-little-push.html" target="_blank">this may be the key question to understanding the long arc of human history: is it overall worth it for us to make it overall worth it to live?</a>" I mean, sure, we can all imagine a state of affairs in which it's worthwhile to be alive - <i>that's</i>&nbsp;not very hard. (Actually, it might be easier to imagine the less you try, weirdly.) Some of those states of affairs might even be obtainable. (Though I kinda doubt that Alexander's is.) But how long would it take to implement those imagined scenarios and how long would they last? How many of us would even get to benefit from them? How many humans (and other animals) would have to suffer in order to build this glorious future? How many would have to continue suffering in order to maintain it? (<a href="http://rustbeltphilosophy.blogspot.com/2009/05/theres-big-pile-of-innocent-bones-still.html" target="_blank">How many bones does it take to hold up the garden wall</a>?) In short: what are the, y'know, <i>consequences?</i><br /><br />Because here's the thing: there are quite a few humans (not to mention a shitload of non-human animals) whose lives are nightmarish <i>right now.</i>&nbsp;Moreover, it's been that way for, oh, just about as long as there have been humans (or other morally relevant animals). As much fun as it is to kick back and dream about some future utopia that sounds like a gated community somewhere - and it <i>is</i>&nbsp;fun, don't get me wrong - any utilitarian of any worth will eventually come back around to the fact that there is an <i>incredible</i>&nbsp;amount of suffering in the world. Like, <i>way</i>&nbsp;more suffering than it's even slightly comfortable to consider. It may well be <i>creepy</i>&nbsp;to imagine a world filled with paperclips, and it's certainly <i>unnerving</i> to envision how we'd get to that&nbsp;hypothetical future, but nonexistence is not a utilitarian nightmare. It's not even a utilitarian problem. It is, by utilitarian definition, nothing: zero.<br /><br />Zero isn't a number that most of us would be happy to accept, I know. It feels like defeat or surrender; it means the end; it seems like a high score that should be trivial to beat. But prolonging unnecessary suffering for the sake of a hunch is not be the utilitarian - or even the humane - thing to do. Unless we have a good reason to believe that we can do better than that - and I mean a <i>reason,</i>&nbsp;not just a plucky attitude -&nbsp;we have no basis for thinking that the real nightmare isn't unfolding all around us right now.<br /><br /><br />*Then again, it might not matter if he had tried. There's evidence that his grasp on utilitarianism isn't very strong, even given his own preferred flavor thereof. In his <a href="http://raikoth.net/consequentialism.html#utilitarianism" target="_blank">FAQ</a>, for instance, he rejects blunt pharmaceutical solutions to human problems on the grounds that they're "ignoble," but that objection doesn't make sense by any preference-utilitarianism metric. After all, once you're on the drug, you no longer desire other stuff, and so there's no extant preference for nobility that could go unsatisfied. As I said, he doesn't seem to be very good at utilitarianism.<br />**Perhaps give or take the intensity of the desires in question, depending on how advanced his utilitarian theory is. Even so, though, the basic rule still applies: if my desire for lunch is just as strong as my desire that humanity should continue to exist, Alexander would have to count my lunch as being morally equivalent to human existence (as far as my desires go). There'd be no reason to privilege the latter over the former.<br />***As yet another example of why he's bad at utilitarianism, Alexander completely and totally fails to account for the desires of other animals. The idea of animal rights does show up here and there in his other writings, but he never seems to address the topic at any length and truly seems not to understand its implications for his preferred moral theory. I mean, there are seven billion-ish humans on the planet right now. Do you think that there are <i>more</i>&nbsp;other (morally relevant) animals or <i>fewer?</i>&nbsp;<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_organisms_by_population#Fish_.28Osteichthyes.2BChondrichthyes.2BAgnatha.29" target="_blank">Here's a hint</a>.<br />****This is - surprise! - <i>another</i>&nbsp;example of his shitty utilitarian thinking. A <i>plurality</i>&nbsp;of satisfaction isn't good enough to justify selecting that choice over all the others. If 49% of people want "the Archipelago" and 51% want other stuff, <i>the Archipelago would produce more dissatisfaction than satisfaction and, therefore, would be an overall&nbsp;<b>bad</b>&nbsp;thing according to preference utilitarianism.</i>&nbsp;Nonexistence, on the other hand, is a net neutral.Eli Horowitzhttps://plus.google.com/107677687997893275486noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8924756809871054336.post-25222245053770494732015-02-19T06:34:00.000-08:002015-02-19T06:34:39.653-08:00"Wilhelm Röpke (October 10, 1899 – February 12, 1966) was Professor of Economics..."...<a href="http://www.intercollegiatereview.com/index.php/2015/01/21/humane-economics/" target="_blank">and, evidently, a tremendously awful logician</a>.<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">"If it is liberal to entrust economic order, not to planning, coercion, and penalties, but to the spontaneous and free co-operation of people through the market, price, and competition, and at the same time to regard property as the pillar of this free order, then I speak as a liberal when I reject socialism."</blockquote>Sorry, pal, but <a href="http://rustbeltphilosophy.blogspot.com/2013/01/sock-man-vol-3-journey-into-heart-of.html" target="_blank">there's planning in the market</a>. <a href="http://rustbeltphilosophy.blogspot.com/2014/01/libertarianism-governments-must-never.html" target="_blank">There's also coercion; in fact, markets can't exist without some degree of coercion</a>. (Remember the part about having "<a href="http://rustbeltphilosophy.blogspot.com/2014/01/be-careful-whose-intellectual-products.html" target="_blank">a state ready to protect competition</a>"?) And, of course, there's no reason why we would have to "entrust economic order" either to a fully centralized or a fully market-based system. There are gradations, and those gradations are feasible. So what are we talking about here, exactly?<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">"The history of the last fifteen years, which is that of the failure of the socialist technique all along the line and of the triumph of the market economy, is indeed such as to lend great force to this faith."</blockquote>Oh, okay - we're talking about someone who has no idea how history (the area of inquiry) works. Allow me to explain: fifteen years is not what we in the business would call a representative sample.<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">"In these considerations lies the essential justification of’ ownership, profit, and competition. But—and we shall come back to this later—they are justifiable only within certain limits, and in remembering this we return to the realm beyond supply and demand. In other words, the market economy is not everything. It must find its place within a higher order of things which is not ruled by supply and demand, free prices, and competition."</blockquote>Yes, see, that's what I meant above: you can't very well shit on "planning, coercion, and penalties" <i>and also</i>&nbsp;promise to enforce "certain limits." Limits mean planning; limits mean coercion; limits mean penalties. Also, out of curiosity, which "higher order of things" are we talking about, exactly?<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">"My picture of man is fashioned by the spiritual heritage of classical and Christian tradition."</blockquote>Oooooookay. Wrap it up, we're done.Eli Horowitzhttps://plus.google.com/107677687997893275486noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8924756809871054336.post-30368999818804475522015-02-18T10:31:00.003-08:002015-02-18T12:21:48.845-08:00Bigotry! Bigotry everywhere!<a href="http://www.patheos.com/blogs/nonprophetstatus/2015/02/11/why-craig-hicks-is-our-problem/" target="_blank">AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH</a>!<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">"Early yesterday evening, Craig Hicks shot Deah Shaddy Barakat, Yusor Mohammed Abu-Salha, and Razan Mohammed Abu-Salha to death inside their Chapel Hill, N.C. home. Hicks, who identifies as an anti-theist, regularly posted vitriolic anti-religious sentiment on his Facebook page...<br /><br />I don't think Craig Hicks set down his copy of 'The God Delusion,' walked out of his house and shot three people to death because he thought that's what Richard Dawkins would want. But I do think Craig Hicks' hatred for Islam made his Muslim neighbors appear like a threat when they really weren't. I think it made it easier for him to snap...<br /><br />If we, as atheists, want to avoid hypocrisy, it's time for us to admit we have a problem...There is a line between the reasonable criticism of oppressive doctrine, and condemning the entire religion. By extension, this perspective inescapably labels a religion's adherents as unfit to live in modern society. That dehumanizes people. It turns them into targets of suspicion.<br /><br />To Craig Hicks, Deah, Yusor, and Razan's religion made them targets. Among atheists, he is not alone in his opinion. It is time to clean our house."</blockquote>Sarah Jones is such a bigot, you guys. <i>Such</i>&nbsp;a bigot. Just look at what she's saying: atheists in general "have a problem" because of one alleged* extremist? Religious skepticism (i.e., the condemnation of entire religious belief systems as irrational) "inescapably labels a religion's adherents as unfit to live in modern society"? Atheists need to "clean...house" and dissociate themselves from the most radical fringe elements of their (our) community? B-I-G-O-T-R-Y!<br /><br />And don't even get me started on Vlad Chituc, whose bigotry isn't even internally consistent. In <a href="http://www.patheos.com/blogs/nonprophetstatus/2015/02/12/responses-to-the-chapel-hill-shooting/" target="_blank"><i>his</i>&nbsp;response to the Hicks thing</a>, he claims to support not only the idea that "it's not the tenets of Islam or religion [or atheism] itself that principally drives people to such abhorrent acts" (via German Lopez) and the idea that "its [i.e., an ideology's] adherents can take its reasoning too far, and cross the line into violence" (via Elizabeth Bruenig) <i>but also</i>&nbsp;the idea&nbsp;that "it's difficult to imagine what would drive someone to murder three people over something so stupid, unless the murderer for some reason did not see his victims as full humans deserving of the right to life [due, for instance, to] the growing problem with the continued dehumanization of Muslims, women, and other marginalized groups by community leaders like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Lawrence Krauss, the organizations that support them with awards and speaking engagements, and the mass of young and angry atheists on sites like Reddit" (via Rebecca Watson). So, in order, Chituc thinks that: people don't kill other people for ideological reasons; they do kill other people for ideological reasons, but only when those ideologies are taken "too far"; and that nothing <i>other</i>&nbsp;than ideology could explain some killings. Sure, great - that makes a lot of sense, <i>you flaming bigot.</i><br /><i><br /></i>At this point, some of you may be wondering where I'm getting the idea that Jones's and Chituc's opinions are bigoted. Well, let me tell you where I got that idea from: from a very smart person who said <a href="http://rustbeltphilosophy.blogspot.com/2014/12/so-many-links.html" target="_blank">the following</a>:<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq"><blockquote class="tr_bq">"'Here is what Muslims and Muslim organizations are expected to say: "As a Muslim, I condemn this attack and terrorism in any form."<br /><br />This expectation we place on Muslims, to be absolutely clear, is Islamophobic and bigoted. The denunciation is a form of apology: an apology for Islam and for Muslims. The implication is that every Muslim is under suspicion of being sympathetic to terrorism unless he or she explicitly says otherwise. The implication is also that any crime committed by a Muslim is the responsibility of all Muslims simply by virtue of their shared religion. This sort of thinking — blaming an entire group for the actions of a few individuals, assuming the worst about a person just because of their identity — is the very definition of bigotry...'</blockquote>We don't ask white people to apologize for school shootings, we don't ask Buddhists to apologize for violence in Mynamar, and we shouldn't ask Muslims to apologize for terrorism abroad."</blockquote>See? Doesn't it make sense now? Jones and Chituc are doing nothing if not creating the expectation that atheists should say: "As an atheist, I condemn this attack and ideologically motivated violence in any form." They're doing nothing if not requiring atheists to apologize for atheism, implying that every atheist is under suspicion of being sympathetic to Hicks's actions unless they explicitly say otherwise, suggesting that any crime committed by one atheist is the responsibility of all atheists simply by virtue of their shared ideology, and so on. And, as this very smart person says, "this sort of thinking...is the very definition of bigotry."<br /><br />Who's the very smart person, you ask? Well, duh: that was Vlad Chituc. And I'm joking, of course - Chituc is a fucking idiot and a self-loathing atheist to boot, and his entire schtick relies on holding atheists to a higher (and less rational) standard than the standard to which he holds everybody else. He and his cohort Jones aren't wrong to say that atheists should get their shit straight with respect to Hicks...<br /><br />(Which, by the way: if you're reading this blog and you think that it's a good idea to attack some religious people just because they're religious, <i>what the fuck is wrong with you?</i>&nbsp;Don't fucking do that. There are plenty of ways to be effective in advancing the cause of atheism or secularism without turning into a raving sociopath; try one of those instead, you hypothetical lunatic.)<br /><br />...but that's precisely why they <i>are</i>&nbsp;wrong not to turn an equally critical eye towards other (and, in particular, religious) ideologies. Yes, there are atheists out there whose atheism includes or serves as a cover for ideas that dehumanize believers; and, yes, those varieties of atheism exist not in a vacuum but in a broader context of atheist communities, movements, organizations, and so on. (Hicks may or may not have been one of those atheists; his atheism may or may not have been that sort of atheism.) Other, non-crazy atheists therefore have some power (and, ergo, responsibility) to eliminate the dehumanizing aspects of atheism - <i>in exactly the same way that Muslims </i>(and Christians, Jews, Buddhists, etc.) <i>bear some responsibility for eliminating the oppressive aspects of Islam</i>&nbsp;(and Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, etc.).<br /><br />Unless we can explain why religions are bullshit in a way that doesn't encourage people to kill believers, atheism is in trouble - but the same goes for Muslims who can't justify the Koran, Christians and Jews who can't justify their respective bibles, and so on. Consistency is the name of the game here: what goes for one side has to go for the other side as well. Chituc and Jones might not happen to be consistent, but that tells us much more about them than it does about this situation.**<br /><br />So allow me to do Chituc and Jones one better. Atheists, as it turns out, have at least <i>two</i>&nbsp;problems. One problem, obviously, is the group of people who are like Hicks allegedly is (i.e., whose atheism is either totally unethical or ethical only in the dumbest conceivable way). But another problem is the group of people who are like Chituc and Jones. If you're interested in standing against dehumanization, great - but then don't go around inventing categories like "anti-theist" and then preemptively labeling everyone in that category as an unreasonable, hateful, angry people who need to be "clean[ed out of] our house." And if you're interested in being firmly, rationally critical where firm, rational criticism is called for, great - but then don't throw around the word "bigot" whenever someone suggests that religious ideas have consequences. But don't think that you can get away with playing both sides against each other just because you've managed not to shoot anyone. Just because you aren't the worst doesn't mean you're not bad.<br /><br />*Similarly to yesterday's post, don't necessarily read me as agreeing with Jones and Chituc that New Atheism had anything to do with anything. Right now, I'm just going along for the sake of going along.<br />**As yet another example, <a href="http://www.patheos.com/blogs/nonprophetstatus/2014/11/21/reza-aslan-the-vast-majority-of-atheists-arent-anti-religious/" target="_blank">they</a> <i><a href="http://www.patheos.com/blogs/nonprophetstatus/2014/10/09/maher-debate-continues-in-the-new-york-times/" target="_blank">love</a></i>&nbsp;<a href="http://www.patheos.com/blogs/nonprophetstatus/2014/10/22/chis-stedman-and-reza-aslan-on-experiences-shared-by-atheists-and-muslims/" target="_blank">Reza</a> <a href="http://www.patheos.com/blogs/nonprophetstatus/2014/10/01/reza-aslan-responds-to-bill-maher-genital-mutilation-is-not-an-islamic-problem/" target="_blank">Aslan</a> over at Chituc's blog. <a href="http://www.patheos.com/blogs/nonprophetstatus/2014/11/03/why-is-it-so-hard-for-critics-to-read-reza-aslan-charitably/" target="_blank"><i>Love</i>&nbsp;him</a>. They hold him up all the time as a shining example of someone who does things the right way, i.e., the way that Chituc would like things to be done. And yet what does Aslan have to say about Hicks? That, "<a href="http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterfliesandwheels/2015/02/but-some-experts-see/" target="_blank">just as mainstream Muslims must confront the extremists in their communities...it's time for mainstream atheists to do the same.</a>"Eli Horowitzhttps://plus.google.com/107677687997893275486noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8924756809871054336.post-21840891898048258472015-02-18T08:14:00.000-08:002015-02-18T08:14:15.012-08:00Links!<b>That was fast</b><br /><a href="http://rustbeltphilosophy.blogspot.com/2013/01/any-sufficiently-evolved-biotechnology.html" target="_blank">Two years ago</a>, I sorta joked about how nice it'd be if I had the power to photosynthesize. <a href="http://motherboard.vice.com/read/human-photosynthesis-will-people-ever-be-able-to-eat-sunlight" target="_blank">Turns out it was somewhat less of a joke than I'd thought</a>.<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">"​Imagine if we could do as the plants do, and feed directly off the sun's energy...Synthetic biologists like Christina Agapakis have actually been exploring this possibility in depth, and have even tried to create plant-animal hybrids of their own. While we're far from building a photosynthetic human, new research reveals an intriguing biological mechanism that could advance this nascent field."</blockquote>Tell you what, though: if this eventually works, we'd better be careful that it doesn't enable a sun market. Right now, access to sunlight is only rarely bought or sold, and it's even more rarely bought or sold in those terms. In other words, sunlight is currently nonappropriable, for the most part. But it's not impossible for that to change, and there'll be plenty of motivation for it to change once (or if) people have the ability to "feed directly off the sun's energy."<br /><br /><div><br /></div><div><b>NO, YOU DON'T SAY</b><br /><a href="http://philosopherscocoon.typepad.com/blog/2015/02/making-a-meritocracy.html" target="_blank">This is shocking news</a>. Truly, just shocking.<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">"Justin Weinberg wrote an interesting post today at Daily Nous on 'invite-only and clique-y conferences.' The post was a response to a bunch of questions that have arisen recently on journal practices, networking, and merit. Basically, a lot of people--myself included--have worries about how meritocratic our discipline is (or, rather, isn't). There have, for instance, been some disturbing revelations recently about journal practices--about how some journals do not appear to respect anonymized review, engage in favoritism, etc. A new study just came out showing prestige bias in hiring. Finally--and this is the subject of Justin's post--some have suggested that certain conferences provide an unfair leg-up to friends of people in important places."</blockquote>Here's a question: how would even be <i>possible</i>&nbsp;for philosophy to have meritocratic professional practices (i.e., hiring, promotion, etc.)? <a href="http://rustbeltphilosophy.blogspot.com/2012/10/virtue-rationality-not-much-better-than.html" target="_blank">The field has no idea of what <i>constitutes</i>&nbsp;merit</a>. <a href="http://rustbeltphilosophy.blogspot.com/2015/02/the-meta-games-childs-play.html" target="_blank">Its self-imgae isn't meritocratic</a>. Its teaching isn't even meritocratic: undergrads are routinely taught ideas that nobody in the field takes seriously anymore, and <a href="http://rustbeltphilosophy.blogspot.com/2013/07/an-initial-riskbenefit-analysis-of.html" target="_blank">the most famous authors in the field are notorious fuckups</a>. The real surprise, then, would be if the field <i>was</i>&nbsp;meritocratic in any meaningful way.<br /><br /><br /><b>And speaking of which...</b><br />...we really need to phase out the philosophy of religion. Granted,&nbsp;<a href="http://philosopherscocoon.typepad.com/blog/2015/02/is-theology-comparable-cfp.html" target="_blank">Elisa Freschi may not think so, but she's very obviously wrong</a>.<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">"On the one hand, in fact, one might say that to be 'apologetic' is not a bad thing, insofar as it really amounts to taking problems at heart and creating sound arguments about difficult issues (I, for one, am inclined to think that little or no philosophical, mathematical and logical problem at all would have been solved if it were not for one's determination to take it at heart and consider all possible solutions)."</blockquote>Everything about this is wrong. For one, you can't just start by assuming that any religious tenet is a "possible solution" for anything. People may <i>think</i>&nbsp;that religious ideas have the potential to produce "sound arguments about difficult issues," but that doesn't mean they're right; epistemic possibility is not the same as actual possibility. For another, philosophy doesn't belong in the same list as math and logic. For a third, Freschi doesn't know what the fuck she's talking about when she says that "little or no...mathematical [or] logical problem at all would have been solved" unless people were willing to "consider all possible solutions." That's simply not how those fields have historically worked. And so on and so forth - you can, I'm sure, add your own examples.<br /><br /><br /><b>It's a <i>spatial</i>&nbsp;fix</b><br /><a href="http://thenewinquiry.com/essays/manifesto-of-the-committee-to-abolish-outer-space/" target="_blank">Get it</a>?<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">"Nobody should be surprised that there's an international conference dedicated to promoting human settlement of Mars. Evil has always been with us...It's a truism that capitalism never solves its problems but only moves them around. Finally it's running out of space. The conditions necessary not only for social but biological life are being eroded. It's running out of minerals; it's running out of value (the amount of debt on the planet now exceeds the total value of everything on Earth). And all this is accompanied by ghastly mocking nebulae and the idea that the greatest possible course of action for humanity is for us to go about <i>exploring the galaxy,</i> turning void into value, giving capital an infinite field in which to work its sinister magic."</blockquote></div><div>Actually, though, the "infinite field" of space only represents the <i>second</i>-largest potential area into which capitalism could, in theory, expand. Bonus points will be awarded to anyone who can identify the largest such area.<br /><br /><br /><b>I like <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vkLOg252KRE" target="_blank">the other War On Drugs</a> better</b><br />Ah, the good ol' small-government conservatives over at the Heritage Foundation. <a href="http://dailysignal.com/2015/02/10/former-drug-czar-federal-prosecutor-argue-marijuana-legalization-science-not-support/" target="_blank">I wonder what they're up to these days</a>...<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">"When asked by the an audience member [at a Heritage event] if marijuana is worse than alcohol, [speakers William] Bennett and [Robert] White admitted that America still has a problem with underage drinking and use of prescription pills...White concluded, 'Why add a third problem?'"</blockquote>Hm. Well <i>that</i>&nbsp;doesn't seem to make sense. I mean, it makes sense that the Heritage people are scumbag sophists who have no real principles, but "why add a third problem" doesn't exactly make sense as an answer to the question of whether weed is worse than alcohol. But, hey, why not just change the subject? It's not like anybody has the power to hold the Heritage people responsible for any of their bullshit, right?</div>Eli Horowitzhttps://plus.google.com/107677687997893275486noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8924756809871054336.post-91658011031725363162015-02-17T13:02:00.000-08:002015-02-17T13:02:26.642-08:00Economic History TheaterOn today's episode,&nbsp;<a href="http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/losing-liberty-in-an-age-of-access" target="_blank">ownership</a>.<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">"Writers Derek Thompson and Jordan Weissman recount that, in 2010, Americans aged 21 to 34 'bought just 27 percent of all new vehicles sold in America, down from the peak of 38 percent in 1985.' From 1998 to 2008, the share of teenagers with a driver's license dropped by more than a fourth. And it isn't just cars and driving: Thompson and Weissman cite a 2012 paper written by a Federal Reserve economist showing that the proportion of new young homeowners during the period from 2009 to 2011 was at a level less than half that of a decade earlier. It's not quite a stampede from ownership, but it's close.<br /><br />In part, these changes can be chalked up to the post-Great Recession economy, which has left Millennials facing bleak job prospects while carrying heavy loads of student debt. But those economic conditions have been reinforced by other incentives to create a new way of thinking among Millennials. They are more interested than previous generations in paying to use cars and houses instead of buying them outright. Buying means responsibility and risk. Renting means never being stuck with what you don't want or can't afford."</blockquote>Every now and then, I see people going on about ownership. I guess this is one of those things that gets traced back to various dead white guys, whose dead-whiteness is supposed to serve as some kind of reason to take the idea more seriously. At any rate, to whatever degree James Poulos's version is representative of "the dream of property ownership" (<a href="http://rustbeltphilosophy.blogspot.com/2013/07/every-serf-lord.html" target="_blank">cf?</a>) in general, that dream can't be <i>that</i>&nbsp;great.<br /><br />To start with, it's ludicrous to suggest that we're "close" to "a stampede from ownership" just because fewer young people are buying cars and houses (than they were at some arbitrary point in the past). I kinda can't believe that I have to say this, but cars and houses are only two types of things that people can own. They aren't even the only extremely expensive things, or the only things that entail "responsibility and risk," or whatever - if those were his concerns, Poulos could equally well have mentioned art, jewelry, pets, children, household appliances, antiques, or any number of other things. You don't necessarily <i>own</i>&nbsp;all of those things (<a href="http://rustbeltphilosophy.blogspot.com/2015/02/yes-hes-doctor-yes-thats-awful-but.html" target="_blank">ahem</a>), but that, too, goes to my point: ownership is one thing, responsibility and risk are other things, and each of those categories is only imperfectly represented by houses and cars.<br /><br />It's likely, then, that Poulos's concerns aren't fundamentally related to ownership as such but are, instead, reflective of some other sociopolitical ideology that merely happens to touch on ownership in some way. And, in fact, he identifies just such an ideology later on:<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">"In <i>Property and Freedom</i> (1999), Richard Pipes restated the liberty argument for ownership by showing how the history of ownership in England and Russia charted two different political paths. In the English case, the possession and maintenance of property over generations led to the development of a political culture that not only prizes personal freedom but nourishes the practice of self-government. In the Russian case, by contrast, private property only came to exist because absolute rulers revocably granted it on case-by-case terms. Without an organic and cohesive property tradition, freedom does not arise because it cannot even really be imagined."*</blockquote>"Freedom" and "liberty" aren't much more accurate descriptors than "ownership" or "responsibility" or "risk" were, but at least we're now getting closer to the heart of the matter. Poulos likes "ownership" (by which he means ownership of cars and houses) because of the "political path" that he associates with it. In other words, he's making an argument about economic history: "ownership" (of houses and cars) is a good economic-historical move, he's saying, whereas it's a bad economic-historical move to allow "absolute rulers" to define the limits of "private property" (in the form of houses and cars). Readers of this blog will be unsurprised to learn that Poulos's interpretation of Pipes's work isn't exactly backed up by the most robust of statistics (see e.g. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_home_ownership_rate" target="_blank">1</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_vehicles_per_capita" target="_blank">2</a>), but I actually have my sights set on a bigger target than Poulos's innumeracy - namely, the limited range of his historical thought.<br /><br />It should not, after all, have been difficult to notice that Pipes only investigates two out of a very large number of possible "property" regimes. Despite that - and despite the fact that <i>Poulos's entire article is itself devoted to describing a third relevant possibility</i>&nbsp;-&nbsp;Poulos acts as though those two "paths" are exhaustive (if not of the possible histories than at least of the relevant ones). By limiting himself to those two options, he forces himself to categorize every regime as English or not-English (i.e., Russian). Observe:<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">"[Socioeconomic theorist Jeremy] Rifkin laid out his vision [of the future] in an underappreciated book called <i>The Age of Access: The New Culture of Hypercapitalism, Where All of Life Is a Paid-For Experience</i> (2000). As its subtitle implies, Rifkin argues that 'ownership is steadily being replaced by access' as we increasingly allow only 'suppliers to hold on to property,' charging us user fees or dues. 'The exchange of property between sellers and buyers — the most important feature of the modern market system — gives way to short-term access between servers and clients operating in a network relationship.' This 'shift from ownership to access,' says Rifkin, means 'profound changes in the way we will govern ourselves in the new century.' Hence our current predicament."</blockquote>The access economy (as exemplified by Uber, airBnB, et al) is manifestly <i>not</i>&nbsp;just a modern version of either the Russian or the English model. Sure, the Russian model features "suppliers" and so does the access economy, but it'd be insane to think that our access "suppliers" are "absolute rulers" of anything. As Poulos himself says earlier in the article, it's not that young people <i>can't</i>&nbsp;own houses or cars because those items are being withheld. It's that they're <i>choosing not to</i>&nbsp;own them.&nbsp;Similarly, when Poulos rejects the idea of public goods (such as welfare), he does so merely by pointing out that they don't fit with the English model, even though something like a public transit system is also obviously very different from a system of transit vehicles that are "revocably granted...on case-by-case terms." And so on and so forth: at every step, he enforces an all-or-nothing false dilemma, such that he interprets any step away from the English model as being functionally equivalent to a full-on promotion of the Russian model. Taken as generically historical reasoning, this kind of sloppiness is laughable in the way that it reduces the entirety of the human world to a few centuries in two societies.** Taken as a prescription for our economic future, however, Poulos's idiocy suddenly stops being funny.<br /><br />In his own words, nothing short of "free markets" will do for Poulos, because such markets are the prerequisites for "economic freedom" and "political freedom." At the same time, though, he also admits that "[c]apitalists and free-marketeers" are responsible for creating and propagating the modern access economy. This is a circle that Poulos never manages to square, although he does lean heavily on Rifkin's idea that "the most important feature of the modern market system" is its "social structure":<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">"He [Rifkin] argued that markets, which once drew people to mingle face to face at specific sites, have been replaced by networks, which disperse us as widely as our transactions. For Rifkin, and some others among the futurists, the eclipse of the market is the hallmark of a new economic — and political — age." (Poulos)</blockquote>However, Poulos would have to change his tune in order to pursue that idea with any degree of rationality; a&nbsp;<i>free</i>&nbsp;market is, after all, not the same thing as a&nbsp;<i>social</i>&nbsp;market, and even a social <i>market</i>&nbsp;isn't the same as a <i>community</i>. <a href="http://thenewinquiry.com/blogs/marginal-utility/authentic-sharing/" target="_blank">As Rob Horning observes</a>, only the latter is defined so that it requires people (as individuals and in aggregates) to spend money on things that have no <a href="http://rustbeltphilosophy.blogspot.com/2013/01/sock-man-vol-3-journey-into-heart-of.html" target="_blank">readily appropriable value</a>:<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">"The perhaps ineluctable problem is that belonging to communities is hard. It is inefficient. It does not scale. It doesn't respond predictably to incentives. It takes more work the more you feel you belong. It requires material sacrifice and compromise. It requires a faith in other people that exceeds their commercial reliability. It entails caring about people for no reason, with no promise of gain."</blockquote>Although the two agree on many points, Horning's understanding of economic history provides a much needed corrective to Poulos's. Horning understands that public accommodations can be used to undercut access economies because the two are often in direct competition; that capitalist markets are the source of the problem, not its solution; that cultural campaigns (such as Poulos prefers to policy changes) mean little in the face of material need; and so on. In short, Horning understands that there are more than two relevant "political paths," so that we'd abandon reason by simplistically describing everything as either English or not-English.<br /><br />But Horning could have gone even <i>further</i>. Not only does Poulos incorrectly analyze the connections between politics, culture, and economics, he totally forgets to consider the fact that there are other connections that must be taken into account. Owning a car, for example, entails having a physical place to store the car at all times. (<a href="http://rustbeltphilosophy.blogspot.com/2013/10/how-many-posts-am-i-going-to-have-to.html" target="_blank">See also.</a>) Space, therefore, is a relevant consideration, and we know from history that humans' spacial arrangements haven't remained at all constant. If you're a farmer and you own a large tract of land, car ownership essentially costs you nothing in storage because you were already paying for a car-sized space that you weren't using. But if you live in a city, the story is going to be very different.*** There are always tricks that we could use to get around these restrictions, but, much like Horning's description of community, these tricks don't scale and so they're guaranteed to break down eventually.<br /><br />This, then, is why Poulos's thinking is so scary: he's essentially asking us to <i>rewind </i>economic&nbsp;history to an idealized point in the past and to <i>freeze</i>&nbsp;economic history at that point, which is already impossible, and <i>then,</i>&nbsp;on top of that, he's making this request without even <i>trying</i>&nbsp;to understand what the implications would be for other historical paths. That level of blitheness is, frankly, terrifying, even if you for some reason agree with Poulos in his love of markets. Whatever role ownership should have in the long arc of human economic history, we aren't going to identify that role until we think about the subject with much more rigor and much less silliness than Poulos does.<br /><br />*As a side note, please bear in mind that I'm going to take Pipes's ideas as Poulos presents them. Without having read his book and without having made any effort to corroborate his findings, I really can't say that he's telling the truth about anything at all. So when I talk about the English and Russian regimes, please remember that I'm just using those phrases to point back to the two poles of the either/or political spectrum that Poulos relies on, regardless of whether those poles actually do match up with any nation's history.<br />**For bonus hilarity, check out the part where Poulos warns that we're heading towards "the kind of abstract, limitless, and violent ideal [of freedom that existed] in revolutionary France."<br />***And that's to say nothing of the urban design problems that inevitably come along when you try to make your city car-friendly. Cities, it seems, <i>really</i>&nbsp;do not mix well with cars.Eli Horowitzhttps://plus.google.com/107677687997893275486noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8924756809871054336.post-64869151095478249672015-02-17T08:01:00.001-08:002015-02-17T08:01:44.158-08:00Three stages of reasoning ethics<b>Stage one</b>: <a href="http://kazez.blogspot.com/2015/02/the-marquette-situation.html" target="_blank">not learning at all</a>.<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">"Now you might say--some opinions are beyond the pale. &nbsp;You do have to stop students from engaging in hate speech--which some will do, if given a chance (I know from experience). But in the relevant context, can opposing gay marriage be put in that category? The student has enrolled at a Catholic University, and as we all know, the Catholic church opposes gay marriage. Furthermore, this is a time when gay marriage is being debated in the courts. Several members of the Supreme Court are going to oppose it in hearings later this year. &nbsp;It can't be right to lump opposition to gay marriage with forbidden, hateful speech."</blockquote>So "[i]t can't be right" that there exist institutions that are both prestigious and bigoted? It's automatically true that an idea is legitimate whenever it's taken seriously by "the Catholic church" and "[s]everal members of the Supreme Court"? No.&nbsp;<a href="http://rustbeltphilosophy.blogspot.com/2014/01/on-difference-between-nice-try-and-fuck.html" target="_blank">Fuck off</a>.<br /><br /><br /><b>Stage two</b>: <a href="http://thenewinquiry.com/blogs/zunguzungu/you-are-totally-unreliable-twitter/" target="_blank">learning, but not enough</a>.<br /><div><blockquote class="tr_bq">"As readers—both as readers of texts, and as daily interpreters of things we hear people say—we misread <i>constantly</i>, so much that we might as well regard it as the norm...We can try to control for this problem—if we don't pretend it doesn't exist—but we don't have many resources in doing so. You can repeat yourself; you can anticipate misreadings and try to correct them; you can even ask your audience to repeat back to you what you've said, so that you can clarify and correct. Misreaders are going to misread, and [although] we are all misreaders...we become dangerous readers when we stop trying to correct for our own failings, when we insist that any misreading is the fault of other people, and narcissistically insist that what we have creatively produced is the real text.<br /><br />This is why we need more generous readers, and more of them. If you aren't trying to understand what<i> I</i> think I'm saying—if you're not trying to reconstruct the patchwork of words and thoughts and references in a sympathetic collaboration with the organic set of ideas that I was trying to stitch together—then you and I are not on the same team, we are working at cross-purposes, and our collaboration is not going to work out. If you don't presume a base-level of good faith, competence, and insight on my part—and try to correct for your own narcissism, incompetence, and mistakes by also forgiving me for mine—then we are not going to understand each other in any meaningful way."</blockquote>To begin with, it definitely should not have taken Aaron Bady very long at all to figure out that "'changing minds' is something that twitter is all but engineered to do poorly." As theses go, that one is somewhat of a no-brainer. For our purposes, though, the more relevant part is the tension between what he says above and his subsequent assertion that, "ultimately, we are always relying on the social contexts and communicative frameworks that govern and clarify where and how we are to listen and understand."<br /><br />The contexts-and-frameworks thing, as it turns out, is <i>by far </i>the&nbsp;more important piece of information here, and it trumps outright the stuff about "need[ing] more generous [i.e., charitable] readers." See, generosity is just one framework among many, and Bady already admits that (a) there will never be just one framework and (b) no framework is perfect. So why, then, would we want to follow him in pushing for one framework above all the others? Why would we want to emulate his tunnel vision, which only sees the value of people being "on the same team" as one another? Understanding the normative complexities of reasoning is nice and all, but that understanding is near-useless unless it's coupled with the further understanding that there are lots of different ways to read/listen and to communicate, no one of which is appropriate in every instance.<br /><br /><br /><b>Stage three</b>: <a href="http://www.patheos.com/blogs/hallq/2015/02/internet-jerks-comment-moderation/" target="_blank">making real progress</a>.<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">"I've been thinking a lot about what the hell is wrong with the internet these days...Thinking about this, I start to become very sympathetic to Scott Alexander's policy that comments need to be any <i>two</i> of true, necessary, and kind...<br /><br />I firmly believe that while vague rules invite hypocrisy, too-precise rules tend to have silly consequences, and therefore vague rules are often the lesser evil. Therefore, I will make an even simpler rule than Scott's policy: <b><i>don't be a jerk for no good reason</i></b>. If (in my eyes) you violate that rule, your comment will get deleted. Simple as that."</blockquote>Now, this is Chris Hallquist I'm quoting, and Hallquist has (so far as I know) <a href="http://rustbeltphilosophy.blogspot.com/2013/02/more-on-fincke.html" target="_blank">always been on the saner side of this particular schism</a>. Alexander is another story entirely, as his comment policy (seemingly published or updated around the beginning of 2014) totally flies in the face of the way that he himself reasoned both <a href="http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/05/30/fetal-attraction-abortion-and-the-principle-of-charity/" target="_blank">shortly before</a> and <a href="http://rustbeltphilosophy.blogspot.com/2014/04/straw-and-bullshit-cwoba.html" target="_blank">shortly after</a> he decided on the any-two rule. One way or another, though, people do appear to be inching ever so slowly towards a truly consequentialist reasoning ethic, which is the only workable kind. ("Don't be a jerk for no good reason" is, after all, a much closer ideological approximation of "do the most overall good" than is "say something that is at least two of true, necessary, or kind.") I still expect this learning process to last longer than my lifetime and to be incomplete even at its zenith, but at least it's starting to look like there might <i>be</i>&nbsp;a process.</div>Eli Horowitzhttps://plus.google.com/107677687997893275486noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8924756809871054336.post-49131437296359219402015-02-16T12:03:00.002-08:002015-02-16T12:03:32.296-08:00The Meta-Game(s): child's playWhoops! Forgot that I was off work today. I guess I'll write one post and then go back to being on vacation. <a href="http://www.philosophersmag.com/index.php/tpm-mag-articles/11-essays/21-a-marathon-for-the-mind" target="_blank">Here goes</a>.<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">"The [philosothon] event was organised by the Philosophy Foundation, a London based educational charity which brings philosophy to children in schools. Their aim is to make 'Reasoning' the fourth 'R' in education by, as they put it on their website, 'giving children the tools to help them think critically, creatively, cohesively and autonomously.'"</blockquote>Notice anything missing from that definition of "reason" (which, in this context, is very clearly operating as a meta-game rule that conditions and shapes the way that people practice philosophy)? We have criticism, <a href="http://rustbeltphilosophy.blogspot.com/2014/05/the-meta-games-critical-inspiration.html" target="_blank">which is good</a>. We have creativity, <a href="http://rustbeltphilosophy.blogspot.com/2013/07/which.html" target="_blank">which is popular if not necessarily very useful</a>. We have (presumably logical) cohesion, which is so obviously important that I won't bother to link to a post about it. And we have autonomy, <a href="http://rustbeltphilosophy.blogspot.com/2014/01/my-reasoning-culture-is-only-reasoning.html" target="_blank">which is probably not as important as some people make it out to be</a> and <a href="http://rustbeltphilosophy.blogspot.com/2013/06/congratulations-youre-dumb-or-ethics-is.html" target="_blank">which can actually be very dangerous</a>. But regardless of how valuable those things may or may not be in any given case, we're missing a rather important piece of the puzzle. Can't figure out what it is? That's okay - I'll come back to it later. For now, back to the article:<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">"The children's aim was to see their school win maximum points in the debates and so win the overall competition (the cup). Individuals were also assessed and awarded separate prizes (medals) for such things as the intelligent use of counter examples, the mobilisation of a thought experiment, clear evidence of having absorbed the logic of the conversation but taking it in a legitimate new direction and so on."</blockquote>If you're still struggling to identify the missing piece, the mention of <a href="http://rustbeltphilosophy.blogspot.com/2013/12/thoughtless-experiments.html" target="_blank">thought</a> <a href="http://rustbeltphilosophy.blogspot.com/2012/06/i-claim-this-land-in-name-of-philosophy.html" target="_blank">experiments</a> should provide a very useful clue. Also, and on a related note,&nbsp;<a href="http://rustbeltphilosophy.blogspot.com/2014/08/variant-analysis-optimized-punishments.html" target="_blank">it should be at least slightly disconcerting to learn that these people conceive of philosophy primarily as a debate contest</a>&nbsp;wherein (per the following rubric description) points are awarded to&nbsp;<a href="http://fapsa.org.au/philosothon/" target="_blank">private performances of (apparently) profound insight</a>:<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">"Shows superior ability to engage in the collaborative inquiry process<br />Demonstrates sophisticated understanding of concepts central to the topic<br />Employs rigorous and sophisticated justification and reasoning<br />Consistently tackles areas of difficulty through effective questioning<br />Always develops own and others' ideas insightfully"</blockquote>See, according to this picture of philosophy, philosophers operate on an abstract plane. That plane contains only theoretical constructs (topics, concepts, ideas, etc.) and so philosophers only perform the sorts of actions that involve the manipulation of theoretical constructs (questioning, inquiring, developing, building thought experiments, understanding, "absorb[ing] the logic of the conversation," etc.). In short, this is an official and (more or less) explicit endorsement of <a href="http://rustbeltphilosophy.blogspot.com/2014/03/eureka-meta-game-sans-parenthetical-s.html" target="_blank">the (truly awful) private-performance-of-profound-insight theory of meta-philosophy</a>, which makes the following paragraph (from the original link) somewhat laughable:<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">"In [philosopher Ellen] Fridland's case at least, there is little doubt: she really did see something with philosophical merit. 'At the Philosothon, I saw a large group of young children thinking and reasoning about questions that philosophers have struggled with for ages,' she said. 'I was impressed by how students were able to give various examples and counterexamples that mirrored positions established in the canon.'"</blockquote>Yes, even children can privately achieve insights that are, for them, profound. (For example: "Even if they put your body in prison, your mind is still free to go wherever it likes.") But why is this a surprise? And why, moreover, would we be we excited or "impressed" to learn that "the canon" is no more advanced than the first-pass guesswork of schoolchildren?<br /><br />As I've indirectly implied&nbsp;<a href="http://rustbeltphilosophy.blogspot.com/2014/10/meta-game-studies-twelve-ls-in-row-is.html" target="_blank">elsewhere</a>&nbsp;(and as I may have stated outright, for all I can remember), this lack of historical progress in the field should horrify rather than please us. A meta-game that mires an activity in amateurish bumbling for literally thousands of years is not&nbsp;a meta-game that we should teach to children; a meta-game that provides its initiates with no (or minimal) advantages over prepubescent neophytes is not a meta-game of any value. This will be tremendously obvious, I think, if we just consider some other field instead of philosophy. Left to their own devices, children who know nothing about physics are not, for example, going to come up with the idea of equal and opposite forces. Likewise for biology and the survival of the fittest; psychology and operant conditioning; chemistry and Boyle's law; and so on. In every other field, it's unquestionable that a group of kids could never even roughly reproduce the field's canon just by sitting in a room and talking things out. The fact that this works with philosophy should, therefore, be the farthest thing from comforting.<br /><br />So as far as the philosothon goes, something is wrong. Either its depiction of philosophical reason contains something it shouldn't, or it doesn't contain something that it should, or both. Already I've suggested that the philosothon could stand to have less emphasis on creativity and autonomy. To that, I'll now add the piece that I've been withholding: it needs a way to close the loop. The model, evidently, is "dialogue about open questions and contestable concepts," but (by definition) philosophy will never make the sort of progress that other fields have made unless it <a href="http://rustbeltphilosophy.blogspot.com/2014/08/closing-time.html" target="_blank"><i>closes</i>&nbsp;questions</a> and <a href="http://rustbeltphilosophy.blogspot.com/2013/03/assisted-suicide-reasoning-ethically.html" target="_blank"><i>ends</i>&nbsp;contests over concepts</a>. Those who read this blog will already know that I'd like to use more empirical evidence to assist in the question-closing and the contest-ending, but at this point I'm almost ready to settle for anything else that'll do the job. (Not that I can think of anything else that'll do the job, but whatever...)<br /><br />Seriously, the field has fallen so deeply into self-parody by this point - "we're so useless that children could do our jobs for us - oh, and look, they have!" - that I'll take whatever I can get. I won't go so far as to say that the philosothon is useless or anything (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosothon#Rationale" target="_blank">see e.g.</a>), but I cannot for the life of me see it as anything other than a condemnation of the field's current overall state. In particular, if working philosophers don't see this sort of thing as a warning sign or a wake-up call, there may be no hope for professional philosophy whatsoever. I mean, don't get me wrong: children aren't dumb. (Or, well, not all of them are.) Given the right hints and prompts, they can figure out old shit on their own; given the right teaching, they can figure out new shit, too. But the main "findings" of a field should just not be reproducible in an afternoon by a handful of tweens.Eli Horowitzhttps://plus.google.com/107677687997893275486noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8924756809871054336.post-39478132130896436952015-02-11T09:16:00.000-08:002015-02-11T11:41:46.730-08:00...and preview links!I'll be on vacation tomorrow and Friday, but, for once, I already have some posts planned for when I get back. So, for a change of pace and because I can, I'll leave you with some links to the articles about which I'll be writing. What you'll do with them is up to you.<br /><br /><br /><b>The "philosothon" (which, for the record, is a kinda terrible name)</b><br /><a href="http://www.philosophersmag.com/index.php/tpm-mag-articles/11-essays/21-a-marathon-for-the-mind" target="_blank">Setting the scene</a>:<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">"In a hot London schoolroom there's complete silence. The kids are working hard, but the pause has now stretched out to a good 10 seconds. Even so, the room is hushed as the children patiently wait for their 11-year old colleague to speak.<br /><br />Just as the pause is on the verge of becoming unbearable – and the adult observers in the room expect the person who's asked the question, another grown-up, to move the conversation on – the child finally speaks up: 'Even if they put your body in prison, your mind is still free to go wherever it likes.' It's a clever observation..."</blockquote><a href="http://fapsa.org.au/philosothon/" target="_blank">Looking behind the scenes</a>:<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">"A Philosothon is an event that encourages school students to investigate ethical and other philosophical questions in the context of 'communities of inquiry'..."</blockquote><div><div>Also, an etymological note that doesn't in any way affect the post I'll write about this next week: the "philos" part of "philosophy" roughly originally meant "love of" in Greek. It's the "-sophy" part that refers to wisdom (or knowledge, or whatever it's supposed to mean these days). Meanwhile, "marathon" also comes from the Greek. (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marathon,_Greece#History" target="_blank">Although the "-thon" part of "marathon" originally refers to nothing at all, so far as we know</a>.) So given that these people were going to try to mash the two words together in the first place (not a great idea in many cases and a <i>really</i>&nbsp;bad idea when the two words share a common ancient language of origin), they really should've aimed for "sophiathon" or "sophathon" or something.<br /><br /><br /></div><div><b>Reasoning ethics</b></div><div><a href="http://kazez.blogspot.com/2015/02/the-marquette-situation.html" target="_blank">Jean Kazez is greatly concerned about power dynamics in college classrooms</a>. <a href="http://thenewinquiry.com/blogs/zunguzungu/you-are-totally-unreliable-twitter/" target="_blank">Aaron Bady has apparently only just now figured out that twitter isn't designed to support long, complicated, rational discussions</a>. Now all we need is a university that runs its courses on twitter and we'll be able to piss everyone off.<br /><br /><div><div><br /><b>The "sharing" economy</b><br /><a href="http://thenewinquiry.com/blogs/marginal-utility/authentic-sharing/" target="_blank">The obvious</a>:<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">"'Sharing economy,' of course, is a gratingly inappropriate terms to describe a business approach that entails precisely the opposite, that renders the social field an arena for microentrepreneurship and nothing else..."</blockquote><a href="http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/losing-liberty-in-an-age-of-access" target="_blank">The, um, irrelevant</a>?<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">"A few months before 9/11, when I first moved to downtown Los Angeles, the city's high rises teemed with lawyers and bankers..."</blockquote>To give away probably nothing, I don't care about James Poulos's personal history with the city of LA. So, if you were anticipating a longer article about that, well, sorry.<br /><br /></div><div><div><br /></div><div><b>Beware?</b></div><div>I'm sure that many of you will enjoy reading the following sentences: "I am attached to a humanism which is rooted in these convictions and which regards man as the child and image of God, but not as God himself, to be idolized as he is by the hubris of a false and atheist humanism. These, I believe, are the reasons why I so greatly distrust all forms of collectivism." <a href="http://www.intercollegiatereview.com/index.php/2015/01/21/humane-economics/" target="_blank">You're welcome</a>.<br /><br /><br /><b>The long arc, again</b><br />Not that we should necessarily trust a cookbook author to provide our social commentary in the first place, but <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/11/opinion/mark-bittman-what-is-the-purpose-of-society.html?action=click&amp;contentCollection=Opinion&amp;region=Footer&amp;module=MoreInSection&amp;pgtype=article" target="_blank">Mark Bittman's thoughts on "the purpose of society"</a> are, shall we say, instructive.<br /><br /><br />(edited to add) <b>One in thirty-two</b><br />Those are your odds of blindly guessing which of the links in <a href="http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/01/17/links-12014-link-for-you-know-not-whence-you-came-nor-why/" target="_blank">this post</a> I'll take as a jumping-off point. No hints, though - unless, of course, you count past experience as a hint.<br /><br /><br /><b>And a webcomic</b><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://wondermark.com/c/2015-02-06-1099drawing.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://wondermark.com/c/2015-02-06-1099drawing.png" height="500" width="640" /></a></div><b><br /></b></div><blockquote class="tr_bq"></blockquote></div><div><blockquote class="tr_bq"></blockquote></div></div><blockquote class="tr_bq"></blockquote></div><blockquote class="tr_bq"></blockquote></div>Eli Horowitzhttps://plus.google.com/107677687997893275486noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8924756809871054336.post-36349141580075173862015-02-11T06:19:00.000-08:002015-02-11T06:19:54.920-08:00Links!<b>Well that's much better</b><br /><a href="http://iainews.iai.tv/articles/ai-artificial-imagination-auid-485" target="_blank">Margaret Boden</a> could teach <a href="http://rustbeltphilosophy.blogspot.com/2015/02/you-cant-always-get-what-you-want.html" target="_blank">Ken Goldberg</a> a thing or two.<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">"Scientific psychology has identified three different ways in which new, surprising, and valuable ideas – that is, creative ideas – can arise in people's minds. These involve combinational, exploratory, and transformational creativity. The information processes involved can be understood in terms of concepts drawn from Artificial Intelligence (AI). They can even be modelled by computers using AI techniques."</blockquote>...or three, or four, or, really, as many things as Goldberg has room for in his poor, confused head.<br /><br /><br /><b>Communities of what, now?</b><br /><a href="http://www.cpjustice.org/content/what-distinguishes-center-public-justice" target="_blank">Siiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiigh</a>.<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">"Principled pluralism means that government should give equal treatment to different communities of faith. Government should not have the authority to decide what constitutes true religion. Therefore, government should not try to establish one religion or to enforce secularism in public life. Most religious ways of life seek expression beyond the walls of a church. Most guide their adherents in the way they should live in society and not only in their worship and creedal confessions. Justice, therefore, requires equal treatment of religions in public as well as in private life."</blockquote>Yep, "secularism" sure does belong in the same category as "faith." Ergo, people who reason without reference to religious ideas sure do belong in the same category as "communities of faith." Yyyyyyep - those things are all exactly the same, and so they ought to be treated exactly the same, and so it makes total sense for a secular reason to have the same political weight as a religious reason. Yep yep yep.<br /><br /><br /><b>Aw, yeah</b><br /><a href="http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2015/01/14284/" target="_blank">Give me some of that sexy, sexy seawater</a>.<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">"The Humanum colloquium on the complementarity of man and woman, which was held at the Vatican in November, drew an audience of top religious leaders from all over the globe...The six short videos produced by the conference organizers are visually beautiful. They weave together images of young married couples embracing on their wedding day with those of older couples surrounded by their children at home. Rodin's sensual statues appear, alternating with images of the sea and the dry land, the feminine and the masculine."</blockquote>Those waves, that salinity, those underwater ecosystems - really, when you stop to think about it, which part of the sea&nbsp;<i>isn't</i>&nbsp;feminine?<br /><br /><br /><b>Homo terraformus</b><br />Our tendency to change the face of the planet is something that we take so much for granted that <a href="http://farefwd.com/2015/02/wendell-berrys-room-of-love/" target="_blank">some of us are apparently incapable of even conceiving of it as change in the first place</a>.<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">"Ruth's family had left the farm a generation before and she had grown up in as much of an urban environment as was possible at that time and in that place. As a result, she felt a distance from the natural order of creation and was repelled by the work it demanded."</blockquote>Yeah, uh, guy? Farms do not represent "the natural order of creation." Farms, by definition, are tiny, semi-terraformed areas wherein humans <i>replace</i> the natural order of things with our own designs for how we'd like things to be. Nice try, though.<br /><br /><br /><b>Yep, probably!</b><br /><a href="http://ordinary-gentlemen.com/blog/2015/02/06/hollywood-and-the-quest-for-diversity" target="_blank">This is one of those paragraphs that, once you see it on the screen in front of you, you should reconsider publishing</a>.<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">"I think for me it comes down to wanting to protect something I love. I don't want an Indiana Jones reboot to be a failed experiment [because the title character is played by an actor of color]. I want it to be awesome. It feels like the only way I can trust Hollywood with this is to hope they concentrate on the story more and the social context less. I guess that makes me hopelessly un-progressive? Probably so."</blockquote>Here's just one of the many, many questions that Mike Dwyer should've pondered before releasing this glib confession of his into the wider world: how did "the social context" (i.e., in this case, people's ideas about race) affect the <i>original</i>&nbsp;movies? In other words, how were white people portrayed in those movies and how were people of color portrayed? I don't want to spoil anything for anyone, so I won't answer that question, but it's worth thinking about in the context of Dwyer's desire "to protect" the original feeling of the Jones franchise and his "love" of that feeling.<br /><br /><br /><b>Let's play some cards</b><br /><a href="https://www.bigquestionsonline.com/content/being-good-good-you" target="_blank">But first, let me just arrange the deck the way I would like it to be arranged</a>...<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">"Is Being Good Good for You?<br />First, what is meant by 'good'? &nbsp;'Good' refers here to a way of life in which the security, well-being and happiness of others is actively meaningful, and in which this meaning centers not just on the near and dear, but leans outward to all humanity."</blockquote>If only all philosophy were this easy!Eli Horowitzhttps://plus.google.com/107677687997893275486noreply@blogger.com0